tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-61249150005544039512024-03-05T02:54:39.482-08:00PornStudySkepticsCritiquing porn studies that raise concernsConcerned Observershttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17481437202179154037noreply@blogger.comBlogger16125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6124915000554403951.post-61621034807343830182016-01-10T15:51:00.001-08:002018-09-03T07:39:53.499-07:00Critique of "Perceived Addiction to Internet Pornography and Psychological Distress: Examining Relationships Concurrently and Over Time" (2015) A lost has occurred since Grubbs published this study. See the following critiques and studies that expose the Grubbs CPUI-9 and so-called "perceived porn addiction" for they are - an agenda driven scam:<br />
<br />
<ol>
<li><a href="https://yourbrainonporn.com/believing-yourself-addicted-porn-strongly-correlated-use-not-religiosity" target="_blank">Research
Suggests the Grubbs, Perry, Wilt, Reid Review is Disingenuous
("Pornography Problems Due to Moral Incongruence: An Integrative Model
with a Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis") 2018</a></li>
<li><a href="https://www.yourbrainonporn.com/built-false-premise-grubbs-does-not-assess-perceived-addiction">Is Joshua Grubbs pulling the wool over our eyes with his "perceived porn addiction" research? (2016)</a></li>
<li><a href="https://www.yourbrainonporn.com/study-invalidates-cpui-9-instrument-assess-either-%E2%80%9Cperceived-pornography-addiction%E2%80%9D-or-actual" title="Study invalidates the CPUI-9 as an instrument to assess either “perceived pornography addiction” or actual pornography addiction">New
study invalidates the Grubbs CPUI-9 as an instrument to assess either
“perceived pornography addiction” or actual pornography addiction (2017)</a></li>
<li><a href="https://www.yourbrainonporn.com/religious-users-use-less-porn-and-are-no-more-likely-believe-they-are-addicted" title="Religious People Use Less Porn and Are No More Likely to Believe They Are Addicted">Religious People Use Less Porn and Are No More Likely to Believe They Are Addicted (2017)</a></li>
<li><a href="https://www.yourbrainonporn.com/critique-damaged-goods-perception-pornography-addiction-mediator-between-religiosity-and">Critique of: "<em>Damaged
Goods: Perception of Pornography Addiction as a Mediator Between
Religiosity and Relationship Anxiety Surrounding Pornography Use</em>" (Leonhardt, Willoughby, & Young-Petersen, 2017)</a></li>
<li><a href="https://www.yourbrainonporn.com/utah-1-porn-use">Is Utah #1 in Porn Use?</a></li>
</ol>
<br />
Here are a few of the headlines birthed from <a data-cke-saved-href="http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26372200" data-mce-href="http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26372200" href="http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26372200" target="_blank">this new study</a> by Joshua B. Grubbs, Nicholas Stauner, Julie J. Exline, Kenneth I. Pargament, and Matthew J. Lindberg (Grubbs et al.):<br />
<ul>
<li><i>Watching Porn Is OK. Believing In Porn Addiction Is Not</i></li>
<li><i>Perceived Addiction To Porn Is More Harmful Than Porn Use Itself</i></li>
<li><i>Believing You Have Porn Addiction Is the Cause of Your Porn Problem, Study Finds</i></li>
</ul>
In essence the study's main claim is reported as: "perceived addiction" to pornography is more related to psychological distress than are <i>current</i> daily hours of porn viewing. An excerpt from one of the above articles:<br />
<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
A new study in the journal Psychology of Addictive Behaviors has found
that perceived addiction to pornography—that is, “feeling addicted to
Internet pornography irrespective of actual pornography use”—is
associated with forms of psychological distress including depression,
anxiety, anger, and stress. Pornography use itself, the authors found,
was “relatively unrelated to psychological distress.” </blockquote>
<br />
While
the above quote contains inaccuracies which we will explore, let's take
it at face value. The reader is left with the impression that actual
porn use is no big deal, but "believing" you are addicted to porn will
cause you psychological distress. The take away: It's perfectly healthy
to use porn as long as you don't believe you are addicted.<br />
<br />
Grubbs
et al.'s claim, and all the resulting headlines, are built upon this
finding: Subjects' current hours of porn use did not correlate strongly
enough (in researchers' subjective view) with scores on Grubbs's own
porn use questionnaire (the Cyber Pornography Use Inventory "CPUI"). To
put it another way, if porn addiction really existed there "should" be,
in the authors' view, a one-to-one relationship between current hours of
use and scores on the CPUI. Grubbs et al. also reported that
"psychological distress" was related to scores on the CPUI, but not as
strongly related to current hours of use.<br />
<br />
Here's the thing: <b>There's
absolutely no scientific basis for declaring the CPUI a measure of
"perceived addiction," and yet that's what all the inflated headlines
rest on! </b>The CPUI was never validated for "perceived" as opposed to "real" addiction.<br />
<br />
For Grubbs et al.'s claims and interpretations to be valid, BOTH of the following must be true and supported by actual research:<br />
<br />
<b>1) The </b><a data-cke-saved-href="http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24341869" data-mce-href="http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24341869" href="http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24341869">Cyber Pornography Use Inventory</a><b> (CPUI) must assess "perceived addiction" to porn <i>but not</i> actual porn addiction. </b><br />
<ul>
<li>Grubbs
himself developed the 9-item CPUI as an inventory of online porn
problems, not a "perceived addiction" test. Here he chose to use it in
lieu of other validated addiction tests, precisely to create the
illusion that he could measure "perceived addiction" rather than
addiction. In fact, the CPUI measures the same signs, symptoms and
indications of addiction as do standard addiction tests.</li>
<li>In the
current study, Grubbs et al. use the phrase "perceived porn addiction"
synonymously with subjects' scores on the CPUI, without scientific
justification.</li>
</ul>
<b>2) </b><b>Internet porn addiction must equal hours of porn viewing. </b><br />
<ul>
<li>This is refuted by the scientific literature. Internet porn addiction ≠ hours of porn viewing.</li>
<li>Shockingly,
the Grubbs et al. study reveals there actually was a strong correlation
between hours of use and the CPUI! From p. 6 of the study:</li>
</ul>
<blockquote>
"Additionally, average <b>daily pornography use in hours</b> was <b>significantly and positively associated with depression, anxiety, and anger, as well as with</b> <b>perceived addiction</b>."</blockquote>
With
respect to the first point, Grubbs developed his own porn addiction
questionnaire (CPUI), and then later capriciously declared that it
measures only "perceived addiction to porn" - without demonstrating any
justification for his recharacterization. (Really!)<br />
<br />
With respect
to the second point, previous research teams have found that the
variable "hours of use" is not correlated with cybersex addiction (or
video-gaming addiction). That is, addiction is more accurately predicted
by other variables than "hours of use." As you can see from the above
excerpt, Grubbs actually found a significant correlation between hours
of use and psychological distress.<br />
<br />
We'll look at details about why
Grubbs et al.'s assumptions are neither true nor supportable below, but
here's how the researchers could have described their actual findings
without misleading the public:<br />
<br />
<b><i>"Study finds that porn
addiction is strongly related to psychological distress and less
strongly (but still) related to current hours of use."</i></b><br />
<br />
The
cliff notes version: Addiction is related to psychological distress,
and so are hours of use. So much for the attention-grabbing, misleading
headlines spawned by the study.<br />
<h3>
</h3>
<h3>
The CPUI Assesses Porn Addiction, Not "Perceived Addiction"</h3>
<h3>
</h3>
This
is really simple: Grubbs et al. relabeled Grubbs's self-created porn
addiction test as a "perceived porn addiction" test. However, his Cyber
Pornography Use Inventory (CPUI) questionnaire is in fact similar to
many other drug and behavioral addiction questionnaires. Like other
addiction tests, the CPUI assesses behaviors and symptoms common to all
addictions, such as: the inability to control use; compulsion to use,
cravings to use, negative psychological, social and emotional effects;
and preoccupation with using. In fact, only 1 of the 9 questions below
even hints at "perceived addiction." Yet we are told that a person's
total score for all 9 questions is synonymous with "perceived addiction"
rather than addiction itself. Very misleading, very clever, and without
any scientific basis. Agnotology fodder, anyone? (<a data-cke-saved-href="http://blogs.psychcentral.com/sex-addiction/2014/03/the-bogus-porn-addiction-controversy-and-the-purveyors-of-ignorance/" href="http://blogs.psychcentral.com/sex-addiction/2014/03/the-bogus-porn-addiction-controversy-and-the-purveyors-of-ignorance/" target="_blank">Agnotology </a>is
the study of culturally induced ignorance or doubt, particularly the
publication of inaccurate or misleading scientific data.) Reality check:
other researchers describe the CPUI as an actual porn addiction
assessment questionnaire, and use it as such in their published studies:<br />
<ul>
<li><a data-cke-saved-href="http://www.akademiai.com/doi/full/10.1556/2006.5.2016.022" href="http://www.akademiai.com/doi/full/10.1556/2006.5.2016.022">Examining Correlates of Problematic Internet Pornography Use Among University Student (2016)</a></li>
<li class="pub-title" id="yui_3_14_1_1_1464132377692_862" itemprop="name"><a data-cke-saved-href="http://www.researchgate.net/publication/285216188_Problematic_cybersex_Conceptualization_assessment_and_treatment" href="http://www.researchgate.net/publication/285216188_Problematic_cybersex_Conceptualization_assessment_and_treatment">Problematic cybersex: Conceptualization, assessment, and treatment (2015)</a></li>
<li class="pub-title" itemprop="name"><a data-cke-saved-href="http://www.cyberpsychology.eu/view.php?cisloclanku=2014021702" href="http://www.cyberpsychology.eu/view.php?cisloclanku=2014021702">Questionnaires and scales for the evaluation of the online sexual activities: A review of 20 years of research (2014)</a></li>
</ul>
<br />
Note
that decades of established addiction assessment tests for both chemical
and behavioral addictions rely on similar questions to assess <i>actual, </i>not merely <i>perceived</i>, addiction. Let's compare the CPUI to a commonly used addiction assessment tool known as the "<b>4 Cs.</b>" The CPUI questions that correlate with the four Cs are noted as well.<br />
<ul>
<li><b><u>C</u></b>ompulsion to use (2, 3)</li>
<li>Inability to <u><b>C</b></u>ontrol use (2, 3, maybe 4-6)</li>
<li><u><b>C</b></u>ravings to use (3 especially, but 1-6 could be interpreted as cravings)</li>
<li><u><b>C</b></u>ontinued use despite negative consequences (4-6, perhaps 7-9)</li>
</ul>
<b>The Cyber Pornography Use Inventory</b> (<a data-cke-saved-href="http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24341869" data-mce-href="http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24341869" href="http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24341869" title="Link to source of CPUI">CPUI</a>) (developed by Grubbs)<br />
<br />
<b>COMPULSIVITY:</b><br />
<b>1.</b> I believe I am addicted to Internet pornography.<br />
<b>2. </b>I feel unable to stop my use of online pornography.<br />
<b>3.</b> Even when I do not want to view pornography online, I feel drawn to it<br />
<br />
<b>ACCESS EFFORTS:</b><br />
<b>4. </b>At times, I try to arrange my schedule so that I will be able to be alone in order to view pornography.<br />
<b>5.</b> I have refused to go out with friends or attend certain social functions to have the opportunity to view pornography.<br />
<b>6.</b> I have put off important priorities to view pornography.<br />
<br />
<b>EMOTIONAL DISTRESS:</b><br />
<b>7.</b> I feel ashamed after viewing pornography online.<br />
<b>8.</b> I feel depressed after viewing pornography online.<br />
<b>9.</b> I feel sick after viewing pornography online.<br />
<br />
Addiction
experts rely on assessment tools like the 4Cs as indicating addiction
because neuroscientists have correlated the symptoms those questions
address with underlying addiction-related brain changes in decades of
basic-research studies. As a medical matter, addiction is a disorder of
the brain. It shows up in very specific behaviors, but can't be assessed
from superficial indications such as hours of use. See the <a data-cke-saved-href="http://www.asam.org/docs/publicy-policy-statements/1definition_of_addiction_long_4-11.pdf#search=%22sex%20addiction%22" data-mce-href="http://www.asam.org/docs/publicy-policy-statements/1definition_of_addiction_long_4-11.pdf#search=%22sex%20addiction%22" href="http://www.asam.org/docs/publicy-policy-statements/1definition_of_addiction_long_4-11.pdf#search=%22sex%20addiction%22" title="ASAM public policy statement, August 15, 2011 ">public policy statement of the American Society of Addiction Medicine</a>.<br />
<br />
In
short, the CPUI does a better job at actually identifying that which it
purports to differentially diagnose against (actual addiction) than at
identifying "perceived addiction," as Grubbs claims it does.<br />
<br />
Finally, we
must ask why Grubbs found it necessary to create his own internet porn
addiction test. Others, well established and thoroughly validated, were
available to him. Might it be that as the author of the CPUI he assumes
he has the power to re-label it as a "perceived addiction to porn" test
in order to fool readers into believing that all porn addicts are
misdiagnosing themselves? Sorry, if it walks like a duck and talks like a
duck....<br />
<br />
<b>Bottom Line:</b> The CPUI assesses actual
porn addiction, not "perceived" porn addiction. Delete the word
"perceived" from the study, and every article about it, and you are left
with an unsurprising finding: <b><i>psychological</i> <i>distress is related to <span data-mce-style="text-decoration: line-through;" style="text-decoration: line-through;">perceived</span> porn addiction</i></b>.<br />
<br />
<h3>
Current Hours of Use Are Not Related To Porn Addiction</h3>
<h3>
</h3>
Grubbs
et al.'s conclusion is largely based on a faulty premise: The extent of
a porn addiction is best assessed simply by hours of internet porn
viewing. As Grubbs et al. did not find a tight enough correlation (in
their view) in their subjects, they concluded their subjects merely had
"perceived addiction" instead. Two huge holes in the story render Grubbs
et al.' claim highly suspect.<br />
<br />
As described earlier, the first
gaping hole is that Grubbs et al. actually found a pretty strong
correlation between hours of use and the CPUI! From p. 6 of the study:<br />
<blockquote>
"Additionally, average <b>daily pornography use in hours</b> was <b>significantly and positively associated with depression, anxiety, and anger, as well as with</b> <b>perceived addiction</b>."</blockquote>
Stop
the presses! This excerpt directly contradicts all the headlines, which
claim that pornography use was NOT strongly correlated with
psychological distress or "perceived addiction." Again, whenever you see
the phrase "perceived addiction" it actually denotes the subjects'
total score on the CPUI (which is a porn addiction test).<br />
<br />
To say
all of this another way: Both psychological distress and CPUI scores
were significantly correlated with hours of use. Does any journalist or
blogger ever read an actual study?<br />
<br />
The second hole in this study's underpinnings, which you could drive a truck through, is that research on internet porn and <a data-cke-saved-href="http://www.mdpi.com/2076-328X/5/2/203/htm" data-mce-href="http://www.mdpi.com/2076-328X/5/2/203/htm" href="http://www.mdpi.com/2076-328X/5/2/203/htm">videogame use</a> has established that neither addiction <b>correlates with hours of use</b>.
The variable 'hours of use' is an unreliable measure of addiction, and
established addiction assessment tools evaluate addiction using multiple
other factors (such as those listed in the CPUI). The following
cybersex addiction studies, which Grubbs omitted, report little
relationship between hours and indications of addiction:<br />
<br />
1) <a data-cke-saved-href="http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21117979" data-mce-href="http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21117979" href="http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21117979">Watching
Pornographic Pictures on the Internet: Role of Sexual Arousal Ratings
and Psychological-Psychiatric Symptoms for Using Internet Sex Sites
Excessively (2011)</a><br />
<blockquote>
"Results
indicate that self-reported problems in daily life linked to online
sexual activities were predicted by subjective sexual arousal ratings of
the pornographic material, global severity of psychological symptoms,
and the number of sex applications used when being on Internet sex sites
in daily life, <b>while the time spent on Internet sex sites
(minutes per day) did not significantly contribute to explanation of
variance in Internet Addiction Test sex score </b>(IATsex). We see
some parallels between cognitive and brain mechanisms potentially
contributing to the maintenance of excessive cybersex and those
described for individuals with substance dependence."</blockquote>
2) <a data-cke-saved-href="http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26374928" data-mce-href="http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26374928" href="http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26374928">Sexual Excitability and Dysfunctional Coping Determine Cybersex Addiction in Homosexual Males (2015) </a><br />
<blockquote>
Recent
findings have demonstrated an association between CyberSex Addiction
(CA) severity and indicators of sexual excitability, and that coping by
sexual behaviors mediated the relationship between sexual excitability
and CA symptoms. Results showed strong correlations between CA symptoms
and indicators of sexual arousal and sexual excitability, coping by
sexual behaviors, and psychological symptoms.<b> CyberSex Addiction was not associated with offline sexual behaviors and weekly cybersex use time</b>.</blockquote>
3) <a data-mce-href="http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27012817#" href="http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27012817#">What
Matters: Quantity or Quality of Pornography Use? Psychological and
Behavioral Factors of Seeking Treatment for Problematic Pornography Use
(2016)</a><br />
<blockquote>
According to our best knowledge this study is the first
direct examination of associations between the frequency of porn use and
actual behavior of treatment-seeking for problematic porn use (measured
as visiting the psychologist, psychiatrist or sexologist for this
purpose). Our results indicate that the future studies, and treatment,
in <b>this field should focus more on impact of porn use on the
life of an individual (quality) rather than its mere frequency
(quantity), as the negative symptoms associated with porn use (rather
than porn use frequency ) are the most significant predictor of
treatment-seeking behavior.</b></blockquote>
<blockquote>
Relation between PU and negative symptoms was significant and
mediated by self-reported, subjective religiosity (weak, partial
mediation) among non-treatment seekers. <b>Among treatment-seekers religiosity is not related to negative symptoms</b>.</blockquote>
4) <a data-cke-saved-href="http://www.akademiai.com/doi/full/10.1556/2006.5.2016.022" href="http://www.akademiai.com/doi/full/10.1556/2006.5.2016.022">Examining Correlates of Problematic Internet Pornography Use Among University Student (2016)</a><br />
<blockquote>
Higher scores on addictive measures of internet porn use were correlated with daily or more frequent use of internet porn. However, <b>the
results indicate that there was no direct link between the amount and
frequency of an individual’s pornography use and struggles with anxiety,
depression, and life and relationship satisfaction</b>. <b>Significant
correlations to high internet porn addiction scores included an early
first exposure to internet porn, addiction to video games, and being
male.</b> While some positive effects of internet porn use have been documented
in previous literature our results do not indicate that psychosocial
functioning improves with moderate or casual use of internet porn.</blockquote>
Thus, <b>from the outset this study and its assertions collapse</b>
because its conclusions rest upon equating current hours of use with
the level of addiction/problems/distress reported by subjects as a valid
measure of addiction.<br />
<br />
Why don't addiction specialists rely on
hours of use? Imagine trying to assess addictions by simply asking, "How
many hours do you currently spend eating (food addiction)?" or "How
many hours do you spend gambling (gambling addition)?" or "How many
hours do you spend drinking (alcoholism)?" To demonstrate how
problematic hours of use would be, consider alcohol as an example:<br />
<ol>
<li>A
45-year old Italian man has a tradition of drinking 2 glasses of wine
every night with dinner. His meal is with his extended family and it
takes 3 hours to complete (lots of yakking). So he drinks for 3 hours a
night, 21 hour per week.</li>
<li>A 25 year-old factory worker only
drinks on the weekends, but binge drinks both Friday and Saturday night
to the point of passing out or getting sick. He regrets his actions and
wants to stop, but can't, drives drunk, gets in fights, is sexually
aggressive, etc. He then spends all of Sunday recovering, and feels like
crap until Wednesday. However, he spent only 8 hours a week drinking.</li>
</ol>
Which drinker has a problem? This is why "current hours of use" alone cannot inform us as to who is addicted and who is not.<br />
<br />
Finally,
we must ask why Grubbs et al. chose to create the CPUI when other,
thoroughly validated addiction tests were readily available.<br />
<br />
<b>Bottom line:</b>
The study's claims depend upon "current hours of use" being a valid
criterion for true addiction. They are not. Moreover, once you get past
the abstract, the full study reveals that "current hours of use" is
actually related to both psychological distress and CPUI scores!<br />
<br />
<h3>
"Current Hours of Use" Omits Many Variables</h3>
<h3>
</h3>
A
secondary methodological problem is that Grubbs et al. assessed porn
use by asking subjects about their "current hours of porn use." That
question is troublingly vague. Over what period? One subject may be
thinking "How much did I use yesterday?" another "over the last week?"
or "on average since I decided to quit viewing because of unwanted
effects?" The result is data that are not comparable can't be analyzed
for the purpose of drawing reliable conclusions.<br />
<br />
More important,
the "current porn use" question, on which the study's conclusions rest,
fails to ask about key variables of porn use: age use began, years of
use, whether the user escalated to novel genres of porn or developed
unexpected porn fetishes, the ratio of ejaculation with porn to
ejaculation without it, amount of sex with a real partner, and so forth.
Those questions would likely enlighten us more about who really has a
problem with porn use than simply "current hours of use."<br />
<br />
<h3>
Deeper Analysis: Addiction Correlates With Addiction, not Emotional Distress</h3>
<h3>
</h3>
We
have established that the CPUI is in no way a "perceived addiction"
test. Instead, the CPUI is an actual porn addiction test assessing 3
categories of compulsive pornography use:<br />
<ol>
<li>Compulsion to use & Inability to control use</li>
<li>Efforts to use (negative consequences)</li>
<li>Emotional Distress after using (shame, depression, feel sick)</li>
</ol>
What
do the conspicuous headlines claim and the authors assert? That
psychological distress about one's porn addiction is the real problem,
rather than the addiction itself. If that were true, we would expect
"porn addicts" to score especially high in Emotional Distress category
of the CPUI. Not so. From p. 9 of the study:<br />
<blockquote>
"In all SEM analyses<b>, emotional distress consistently had the weakest loadings on the latent factor of perceived addiction</b>...... Such a consistent pattern across studies <b>strongly
indicates that emotional distress regarding use is not the primary
driving factor in the link between perceived addiction and psychological
distress</b>."</blockquote>
<b>Translation:</b>
Scores on the CPUI Emotional Distress section were the least related to
scores on separate Psychological Distress questionnaires (which measure
such things as stress, depression and anger). Put simply, the
psychological distress of porn addiction does NOT arise from shame or
guilt. Instead, psychological distress arises from the <i>inability to control use despite negative consequences</i>, as measured by CPUI sections 1 and 2. From pg 9 of the study:<br />
<blockquote>
By contrast, <b>perceived compulsivity—the direct acknowledgment of feelings of addiction to pornography</b>—was <b>consistently the primary factor driving perceived addiction.</b> Additionally, <b>access </b>efforts [negative consequences] loaded more strongly on perceived addiction than emotional distress regarding use.</blockquote>
<b>Translation:</b>
The inability to control use (questions 1-3) coupled with negative
consequences (questions 4-6), was more strongly related to
"psychological distress." Put simply, guilt and shame weren't such a big
deal, but inability to control use, the compulsion to watch porn when
subjects don't want to, refusing to go out with friends or attend social
functions in order to view pornography, and putting off important
priorities to view pornography, are what really upset subjects.<br />
<br />
This is a very different reality than readers got from either the misleading headlines or study abstract.<br />
<br />
<h3>
Grubbs Introduction Distorts Current State of the Research</h3>
<h3>
</h3>
In
the introduction and discussion sections Grubbs et al. toss aside
decades of neuropsychological and other addiction research (and related
assessment tools) to attempt to persuade readers that the scientific
literature shows that internet porn addiction doesn't exist (and that
therefore that all evidence of porn addiction must be "perceived," not
real). A new review shows just how farfetched this contention is. See <a data-cke-saved-href="http://www.mdpi.com/2076-328X/5/3/388/htm" data-mce-href="http://www.mdpi.com/2076-328X/5/3/388/htm" href="http://www.mdpi.com/2076-328X/5/3/388/htm">Neuroscience of Internet Pornography Addiction: A Review and Update</a>,
which aligns decades of addiction neuroscience research with recent
neuroscience and neuropsych studies on porn users themselves. It
concludes (logically and scientifically) that internet pornography
addiction is quite real, and in fact a subset of internet addition
(based on more than 100 brain studies, as well as hundreds of other
relevant studies).<br />
<br />
In their opening paragraphs, Grubbs et al.
demonstrate their profound bias by basing their claim about the
nonexistence of internet porn addiction on the papers of two
self-proclaimed "internet porn addiction debunkers": David Ley, author
of <i>The Myth of Sex Addiction, </i>and former UCLA researcher Nicole Prause, whose work has been formally criticized in the medical literature for <a data-cke-saved-href="http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/enhanced/doi/10.1002/sm2.71" data-mce-href="http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/enhanced/doi/10.1002/sm2.71" href="http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/enhanced/doi/10.1002/sm2.71" title="Comment by Isenberg, MD">weak methodology</a> and <a data-cke-saved-href="http://www.socioaffectiveneuroscipsychol.net/index.php/snp/article/view/23833/32589" data-mce-href="http://www.socioaffectiveneuroscipsychol.net/index.php/snp/article/view/23833/32589" href="http://www.socioaffectiveneuroscipsychol.net/index.php/snp/article/view/23833/32589" title="‘High desire’, or ‘merely’ an addiction? A response to Steele et al.">unsupported conclusions</a>.<br />
<br />
For example, Grubbs et al. rely on <a data-cke-saved-href="http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11930-014-0016-8" data-mce-href="http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11930-014-0016-8" href="http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11930-014-0016-8" title="The Emperor Has No Clothes: A Review of the ‘Pornography Addiction’ Model">a one-sided paper</a>
by Ley, Prause and their colleague Peter Finn, which claimed to be a
review (that is, an impartial analysis of the existing literature).
However, it omitted or misrepresented nearly every study that found
negative effects of internet porn use, while also ignoring the dozens of
recent internet addiction studies demonstrating addiction-related
structural brain changes in internet addicts' brains. (<a data-cke-saved-href="http://pornstudycritiques.com/the-emperor-has-no-clothes-a-fractured-fairytale-posing-as-a-review/" data-mce-href="http://pornstudycritiques.com/the-emperor-has-no-clothes-a-fractured-fairytale-posing-as-a-review/" href="http://pornstudycritiques.com/the-emperor-has-no-clothes-a-fractured-fairytale-posing-as-a-review/" title="The Emperor Has No Clothes: A Fractured Fairytale Posing As A Review">Line-by-line critique can be found here</a>.)<br />
<br />
Equaling
telling is Grubbs et al.'s omission of every brain scan and
neuropsychological study that found evidence in support of the porn
addiction model (over a dozen <a data-cke-saved-href="http://pornstudycritiques.com/current-list-of-brain-studies-on-porn-users/" data-mce-href="http://pornstudycritiques.com/current-list-of-brain-studies-on-porn-users/" href="http://pornstudycritiques.com/current-list-of-brain-studies-on-porn-users/" target="_blank">collected here</a>). Instead of hard science from the many omitted studies, the reader is given an overreaching conclusion:<br />
<blockquote>
In
sum, there is a fair amount of evidence suggesting that many
individuals feel addicted to Internet pornography, even in the absence
of a clinically verified diagnosis to subsume such a disorder.</blockquote>
Finally, the only neurological study cited by Grubbs as refuting porn addiction (<a data-cke-saved-href="http://pornstudycritiques.com/uclas-span-lab-touts-empty-porn-study-as-ground-breaking/" data-mce-href="http://pornstudycritiques.com/uclas-span-lab-touts-empty-porn-study-as-ground-breaking/" href="http://pornstudycritiques.com/uclas-span-lab-touts-empty-porn-study-as-ground-breaking/">Steele et al</a>.)
actually supports the porn addiction model. Steele et al. reported
higher EEG readings (P300) when subjects were exposed to porn photos.
Studies consistently show that an elevated P300 occurs when addicts are
exposed to cues (such as images) related to their addiction. In
addition, the study reported that greater cue-reactivity to porn
correlated with less desire for partnered sex. As neither result matched
the headlines, Grubbs perpetuated the flawed conclusions of the
original authors (the "debunkers of porn addiction").<br />
<br />
<h3>
Conclusion</h3>
<h3>
</h3>
Given
its unsupported conclusions and biased claims about the non-existence
of porn addiction, it seems likely that Grubbs et al. designed this
study to meet a specific agenda - to re-label porn addiction as
"perceived addiction" and persuade readers that porn use is harmless and
they need only worry about believing it can harm. Agnotology mission
accomplished!<br />
<br />
This saying comes to mind: <i>What the abstract giveth, the full study taketh away</i>. The headlines and claims spawned by Grubbs et al. are not even supported by the underlying study. Again,<br />
<ol>
<li>Both
internet gaming and internet porn addiction studies have already
established that hours of use do not correlate well with addiction. This
fact alone guts this entire study and its misleading headlines.</li>
<li>The
Cyber Pornography Use Inventory (CPUI) assesses the signs, symptoms and
behaviors of an addiction, not "perceived addiction". Don't be fooled;
the CPUI was never validated for "perceived" as opposed to "real"
addiction.</li>
<li>Grubbs et al.'s study reveals that the "<i>average <b>daily pornography use in hours</b> was <b>significantly and positively associated with depression, anxiety, and anger, as well as with</b> <b>perceived addiction (the CPUI</b></i><b>)</b>." This directly contradicts the press claims that say hours of use were not related to CPUI scores or psychological distress.</li>
</ol>
Any
one of the above dismantles this study, but all three mean that this
study should be ignored as the work of agnotology that it is.<br />
<br />
Research
such as this contributes to the ongoing campaign to confuse the public
about the reality of internet porn addiction. For example, one
frequently sees attempts by Grubbs's colleagues to conflate internet
porn addiction with sex addiction and then sweep both away as
"unsupported," even though the neuropsychological and medical evidence
demonstrating internet addiction is already overwhelming. Another tactic
is to conflate internet porn addiction with "Hypersexual disorder" and
then claim that the DSM-5, by rejecting the latter, has rejected the
former. In fact, internet porn addiction was never formally proposed, or
evaluated, for inclusion in the DSM-5. It's time it was, <a data-cke-saved-href="http://www.mdpi.com/2076-328X/5/3/388/htm" data-mce-href="http://www.mdpi.com/2076-328X/5/3/388/htm" href="http://www.mdpi.com/2076-328X/5/3/388/htm">given the mounting evidence that both internet addiction and its subtype internet porn addiction are true addictions</a>.<br />
<br />
In
the same tradition, Grubbs et al., without justification, now attempt
to sweep aside decades of addiction research and assessment tests
developed for all kinds of addictions, and substitute their own
worldview (that internet porn addiction doesn't exist and should be
recast as "<i>perceived</i> addiction"). Should society and its headline-hungry journalists allow this? You be the judge.Concerned Observershttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17481437202179154037noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6124915000554403951.post-25702292228559398752015-08-30T13:28:00.002-07:002019-02-19T12:36:55.226-08:00Analysis of "Modulation of late positive potentials by sexual images in problem users and controls inconsistent with 'porn addiction' (2015)", by SPAN Lab<div class="field field-name-body field-type-text-with-summary field-label-hidden">
<div class="field-items">
<div class="field-item even">
<ul>
</ul>
<br />
<h3>
Introduction</h3>
Because this paper reported greater porn use related to <em>less</em> brain activation to vanilla porn it is listed as <u>supporting</u>
the hypothesis that chronic porn use down regulates sexual arousal. Put
simply, the more frequent porn users were bored by static images of
ho-hum porn (its findings parallel <a href="https://www.yourbrainonporn.com/book/brain-structure-and-functional-connectivity-associated-with-pornography-consumption-the-brain-on-porn-2014/"><em>Kuhn & Gallinat., </em>2014</a>).
These findings are consistent with tolerance, a sign of addiction.
Tolerance is defined as a person’s diminished response to a drug or
stimulus that is the result of repeated use.<br />
<strong>Eight peer-reviewed papers agree with YBOP’s assessment of <em>Prause et al.</em>, 2015:</strong><br />
<ol>
<li><a href="https://www.yourbrainonporn.com/book/neuroscience-of-internet-pornography-addiction-a-review-and-update-excerpt-critiquing-prause-et-al-2015/" title=""Neuroscience of Internet Pornography Addiction: A Review and Update" - Excerpt critiquing Prause et al., 2015">Neuroscience of Internet Pornography Addiction: A Review and Update (2015)</a></li>
<li><a href="https://www.yourbrainonporn.com/book/decreased-lpp-for-sexual-images-in-problematic-pornography-users-may-be-consistent-with-addiction-models-everything-depends-on-the-model-commentary-on-prause-steele-staley-sabatinelli-hajcak/" title="Decreased LPP for sexual images in problematic pornography users may be consistent with addiction models. Everything depends on the model (Commentary on Prause, Steele, Staley, Sabatinelli, & Hajcak, 2015)">Decreased
LPP for sexual images in problematic pornography users may be
consistent with addiction models. Everything depends on the model
(Commentary on<em> Prause et al.,</em> 2015)</a></li>
<li><a href="https://www.yourbrainonporn.com/book/neurobiology-of-compulsive-sexual-behavior-emerging-science-2016/" title="Neurobiology of Compulsive Sexual Behavior: Emerging Science (2016)">Neurobiology of Compulsive Sexual Behavior: Emerging Science (2016)</a></li>
<li><a href="https://www.yourbrainonporn.com/book/should-compulsive-sexual-behavior-be-considered-an-addiction-2016/" title="Should compulsive sexual behavior be considered an addiction? (2016)">Should compulsive sexual behavior be considered an addiction? (2016)</a></li>
<li><a href="https://www.yourbrainonporn.com/book/is-internet-pornography-causing-sexual-dysfunctions-a-review-with-clinical-reports-excerpt-analyzing-prause-et-al-2015/" title=""Is Internet Pornography Causing Sexual Dysfunctions? A Review with Clinical Reports" - Excerpt analyzing Prause et al., 2015">Is Internet Pornography Causing Sexual Dysfunctions? A Review with Clinical Reports (2016)</a></li>
<li><a href="https://www.yourbrainonporn.com/book/conscious-and-non-conscious-measures-of-emotion-do-they-vary-with-frequency-of-pornography-use-excerpts-analyzing-prause-et-al-2015/" title=""Conscious and Non-Conscious Measures of Emotion: Do They Vary with Frequency of Pornography Use?" - Excerpts analyzing Prause et al., 2015">Conscious and Non-Conscious Measures of Emotion: Do They Vary with Frequency of Pornography Use? (2017)</a></li>
<li><a href="https://www.yourbrainonporn.com/relevant-research-and-articles-about-the-studies/critiques-of-questionable-debunking-propaganda-pieces/neurocognitive-mechanisms-in-compulsive-sexual-behavior-disorder-2018-excerpts-analyzing-prause-et-al-2015/">Neurocognitive mechanisms in compulsive sexual behavior disorder (2018)</a></li>
<li><a href="https://www.yourbrainonporn.com/relevant-research-and-articles-about-the-studies/critiques-of-questionable-debunking-propaganda-pieces/online-porn-addiction-what-we-know-and-what-we-dont-a-systematic-review-2019-excerpt-analyzing-prause-et-al-2015/">Online Porn Addiction: What We Know and What We Don’t—A Systematic Review (2019)</a></li>
</ol>
Because frequent porn users had lower EEG readings than controls,
lead author Nicole Prause claims her anomalous study falsifies the porn
addiction model. Prause proclaimed that her EEG readings assessed
“cue-reactivity” (<a href="https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5171207/" title="Liking, Wanting and the Incentive-Sensitization Theory of Addiction">sensitization</a>),
rather than habituation. Even if Prause were correct she conveniently
ignores the gaping hole in her “falsification” assertion: <strong>Even if <i>Prause et al. 2015 </i>had
found less cue-reactivity in frequent porn users, 21 other neurological
studies have reported cue-reactivity or cravings (sensitization) in
compulsive porn users: <a href="https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4094516/" rel="noopener" target="_blank" title="Cambridge Study: Internet porn addiction mirrors drug addiction (2014)">1,</a> <a href="https://www.yourbrainonporn.com/book/enhanced-attentional-bias-towards-sexually-explicit-cues-in-individuals-with-and-without-compulsive-sexual-behaviours-2014/" rel="noopener" target="_blank" title="Enhanced Attentional Bias towards Sexually Explicit Cues in Individuals with and without Compulsive Sexual Behaviours (2014)">2,</a> <a href="https://medicalxpress.com/news/2015-11-online-porn-sex-addicts-desire.html" rel="noopener" target="_blank" title="Novelty, conditioning and attentional bias to sexual rewards (2015)">3,</a> <a href="https://www.yourbrainonporn.com/book/analysis-of-sexual-desire-not-hypersexuality-is-related-to-neurophysiological-responses-elicited-by-sexual-images-steele-et-al-2013/" rel="noopener" target="_blank" title="Analysis of "Sexual Desire, Not Hypersexuality, Is Related To Neurophysiological Responses Elicited by Sexual Images (2013)"">4</a>, <a href="http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/10720162.2014.970722?journalCode=usac20" rel="noopener" target="_blank" title="Empirical Evidence and Theoretical Considerations on Factors Contributing to Cybersex Addiction From a Cognitive-Behavioral View (2014)">5,</a> <a href="https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21117979" rel="noopener" target="_blank" title="Watching pornographic pictures on the Internet: role of sexual arousal ratings and psychological-psychiatric symptoms for using Internet sex sites excessively (2014)">6,</a> <a href="https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23167900" rel="noopener" target="_blank" title="Pornographic picture processing interferes with working memory performance (2013) ">7,</a> <a href="https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26165929" rel="noopener" target="_blank" title="Cybersex addiction: Experienced sexual arousal when watching pornography and not real-life sexual contacts makes the difference (2013) ">8</a>, <a href="https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25080011" rel="noopener" target="_blank" title="Cybersex addiction in heterosexual female users of internet pornography can be explained by gratification hypothesis (2014) ">9</a>, <a href="https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26026385" rel="noopener" target="_blank" title="Implicit associations in cybersex addiction: Adaption of an Implicit Association Test with pornographic pictures (2015)">10</a>, <a href="https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4441125/" rel="noopener" target="_blank" title="Symptoms of cybersex addiction can be linked to both approaching and avoiding pornographic stimuli: results from an analog sample of regular cybersex users (2015) ">11</a>, <a href="https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4394849/" rel="noopener" target="_blank" title="Getting stuck with pornography? Overuse or neglect of cybersex cues in a multitasking situation is related to symptoms of cybersex addiction (2015) ">12</a>, <a href="https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26374928" rel="noopener" target="_blank" title="Sexual Excitability and Dysfunctional Coping Determine Cybersex Addiction in Homosexual Males (2015)">13</a>, <a href="http://www.jsm.jsexmed.org/article/S1743-6095%2816%2900111-9/fulltext" rel="noopener" target="_blank" title="Altered Appetitive Conditioning and Neural Connectivity in Subjects With Compulsive Sexual Behavior (2016)">14</a>, <a href="http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/10720162.2016.1151390?journalCode=usac20" rel="noopener" target="_blank" title="Subjective Craving for Pornography and Associative Learning Predict Tendencies Towards Cybersex Addiction in a Sample of Regular Cybersex Users. 2016">15</a>, <a href="http://journal.frontiersin.org/article/10.3389/fnbeh.2016.00154/abstract" rel="noopener" target="_blank" title="Compulsivity across the pathological misuse of drug and non-drug rewards (2016)">16</a>, <a href="https://www.yourbrainonporn.com/exploring-relationship-between-sexual-compulsivity-and-attentional-bias-sex-related-words-cohort" rel="noopener" target="_blank" title="Exploring the Relationship between Sexual Compulsivity and Attentional Bias to Sex-Related Words in a Cohort of Sexually Active Individuals (2016)">17</a>, <a href="https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28409565" rel="noopener" target="_blank" title="Can Pornography be Addictive? An fMRI Study of Men Seeking Treatment for Problematic Pornography Use (2017)">18</a>, <a href="https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2352853216300499" rel="noopener" target="_blank" title="Mood changes after watching pornography on the Internet are linked to tendencies towards Internet-pornography-viewing disorder (2017)">19</a>, <a href="http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/10720162.2017.1329042" rel="noopener" target="_blank" title="Predictors for (Problematic) Use of Internet Sexually Explicit Material: Role of Trait Sexual Motivation and Implicit Approach Tendencies Towards Sexually Explicit Material">20</a>, <a href="https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30203692" title="Tendencies toward Internet-pornography-use disorder: Differences in men and women regarding attentional biases to pornographic stimuli (2018)">21</a>.</strong>
Science doesn’t go with the lone anomalous study hampered by serious
methodological flaws; science goes with the preponderance of evidence
(unless you <a href="https://www.yourbrainonporn.com/relevant-research-and-articles-about-the-studies/critiques-of-questionable-debunking-propaganda-pieces/nicole-prauses-unethical-harassment-and-defamation-of-gary-wilson-others/">are agenda-driven</a>).<br />
<br />
<strong>Update: </strong>In this 2018 presentation Gary Wilson
exposes the truth behind 5 questionable and misleading studies,
including the two Nicole Prause EEG studies (<em>Steele et al.</em>, 2013 and <em>Prause et al</em>., 2015):<strong> <a href="https://vimeo.com/272453173">Porn Research: Fact or Fiction?</a></strong><br />
<ol></ol>
<ul>
</ul>
<hr />
<h3>
Hyperbole & Inaccurate Claims</h3>
<h3>
</h3>
Let’s start with the lead author’s hyperbole. <a href="http://pornstudycritiques.com/expose-of-nicole-prauses-harassment-defamation/" target="_blank">Nicole Prause</a>, boldly claimed on her SPAN lab website that this solitary study “debunks porn addiction”:<br />
<br />
<img alt="" class="media-image" height="99" src="https://www.yourbrainonporn.com/sites/yourbrainonporn.com/files/styles/large/public/span%20lab%20-%20study%20debunking%20porn%20addiction_0.JPG?itok=b0cZpdir" width="480" /><br />
<br />
<br />
What researcher would ever claim to debunk an <a href="http://yourbrainonporn.com/research-articles-and-abstracts" target="_blank" title="Addiction Research and Articles About Research">entire field of research</a> and to refute <a href="http://yourbrainonporn.com/sex-addiction" target="_blank" title="Porn Use & Sex Addiction">all previous studies</a> with a single study?(<a href="https://twitter.com/Melissa_Hillxxx/status/746089127221800961" target="_blank">Close ties to the industry in question</a> might cloud a researcher’s perceptions).<br />
<br />
In addition, Nicole Prause claimed her study contained 122 subjects
(N). In reality, the study had only 55 subjects who were “experiencing
problems regulating their viewing of sexual images”. The subjects were
recruited from Pocatello Idaho, which is over 50% Mormon. The other 67
participants were controls.<br />
<br />
In another dubious claim, <i>Prause, et al. </i>2015 stated in both their abstract and in the body of the study:<br />
<blockquote>
“<i>These are the first functional physiological data of persons reporting VSS regulation problems</i>“.</blockquote>
This is clearly not the case, as the Cambridge fMRI study was published nearly a year ago.<br />
In a third claim Nicole Prause has consistently asserted that <i>Prause et al.,</i>
2015 is “the largest neuroscience investigation of porn addiction ever
conducted”. It should be noted that compared to brain scan studies, EEG
studies are far less expensive per subject. It’s easy to gather a large
group of “porn addicted” subjects if you don’t screen the subjects for
porn addiction or any exclusionary condition (mental problems,
addictions, psychotropic drug use, etc.). A few problems with Prause’s
claim:<br />
<ol>
<li>It’s not a study on porn addiction if it has no porn addicts. This study, and 2 earlier Prause studies (<a data-cke-saved-href="/node/2159" href="http://www.yourbrainonporn.com/node/2159"><i>Prause et al.</i>, 2013</a> & <a data-cke-saved-href="/node/5257" href="http://www.yourbrainonporn.com/node/5257"><i>Steele et a</i>l., 2013</a>)
did not assess whether any of the subjects were porn addicts or not.
Prause admitted in an interview that many of the subjects had little
difficulty controlling use: they were not addicts. All of the subjects
would have to have been confirmed porn addicts to permit a legitimate
comparison with a group of non-porn addicts. In addition the Prause
Studies did <a data-cke-saved-href="http://yourbrainonporn.com/nothing-correlates-nothing-span-labs-new-porn-study-2013#screen" href="http://yourbrainonporn.com/nothing-correlates-nothing-span-labs-new-porn-study-2013#screen">not screen subjects for mental disorders, drug use, compulsive behaviors, or other addictions</a>. Three of the five peer-reviewed critiques point out these fatal flaws: <a data-cke-saved-href="http://www.yourbrainonporn.com/neurobiology-compulsive-sexual-behavior-emerging-science-2016" href="http://www.yourbrainonporn.com/neurobiology-compulsive-sexual-behavior-emerging-science-2016" target="_blank" title="Neurobiology of Compulsive Sexual Behavior: Emerging Science (2016)">2</a>, <a data-cke-saved-href="http://www.yourbrainonporn.com/should-compulsive-sexual-behavior-be-considered-addiction-2016-excerpt-analyzing-prause-et-al-2015" href="http://www.yourbrainonporn.com/should-compulsive-sexual-behavior-be-considered-addiction-2016-excerpt-analyzing-prause-et-al-2015" target="_blank" title="Should compulsive sexual behavior be considered an addiction? (2016): Excerpt analyzing "Prause et al., 2015"">3</a>, <a data-cke-saved-href="/node/6967" href="http://www.yourbrainonporn.com/node/6967" title="Decreased LPP for sexual images in problematic pornography users may be consistent with addiction models. Everything depends on the model (Commentary on Prause, Steele, Staley, Sabatinelli, & Hajcak, 2015)">4</a>.</li>
<li><a data-cke-saved-href="https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2015/11/151102083240.htm" href="https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2015/11/151102083240.htm" title="Hypersexual disorder linked to overactive stress systems">“HPA axis dysregulation in men with hypersexual disorder” (2015)</a>
could be considered the largest neuroscience-based study to date on
“hypersexuals” (with 67 subjects in treatment for sex addiction, as
compared to Prause’s 55 subjects who were upset about their porn use).
The study assessed the brain’s response to stress by assessing a hormone
release by the brain (ACTH), and a hormone controlled by the brain
(cortisol). While this study was a published a few months after <i>Prause et al.</i>, 2015, Nicole Prause continues to claim her EEG study as the largest.</li>
<li><a href="http://archpsyc.jamanetwork.com/article.aspx?articleid=1874574" target="_blank">Brain Structure and Functional Connectivity Associated With Pornography Consumption: The Brain on Porn (2014)</a> – Could be considered larger than <i>Prause et al.</i>,
2015, because it had 64 subjects, and all were carefully screened for
exclusionary items such as addictions, substance use, mental disorders,
and medical & neurological disorders. The 3 Prause studies did not
do this.</li>
</ol>
<h3>
</h3>
<h3>
</h3>
<h3>
Prause, et al Assessed Brain Wave Activity</h3>
<h3>
</h3>
Prause, et al. was an <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electroencephalography" target="_blank" title="EEG - wikipedia">Electroencephalography</a>
or EEG study. EEG's measure electrical activity, or brain waves, on the
scalp. Although EEG technology has been around for 100 years, debate
continues as to what actually causes brain waves, or what specific EEG
readings really signify. As a consequence, experimental results may be
interpreted in a variety of ways. Spikes in electrical activity are
called amplitudes (below).<br />
<img alt="" class="media-image" height="240" src="https://www.yourbrainonporn.com/sites/yourbrainonporn.com/files/styles/large/public/EEG%20AMPLITUDES_0.jpeg?itok=h19P1sF-" width="480" /><br />
Researchers believe that certain EEG amplitudes (LPP, P3) <i>may</i>
assess attention given to a particular stimulus, such as a picture. Put
simply, greater amplitudes indicate the subject is paying greater
attention to the visual stimulus presented in the experiment. In the
Prause study the stimulus was a one-second exposure to a sexual photo. A
few important points:<br />
<ol>
<li>Greater attention, and the corresponding EEG spike, cannot tell
us if the person was sexually aroused or if they were repulsed. A higher
spike may just as easily be caused by <a href="http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12459215" target="_blank" title="May I have your attention, please: electrocortical responses to positive and negative stimuli.">negative emotions</a>, such as disgust or shock.</li>
<li>Nor can an EEG spike tell us if the brain's reward circuitry was
activated or not. In contrast, other recent studies on porn users by <a href="http://www.yourbrainonporn.com/neural-correlates-sexual-cue-reactivity-individuals-and-without-compulsive-sexual-behaviours-2014" target="_blank" title="Neural Correlates of Sexual Cue Reactivity in Individuals with and without Compulsive Sexual Behaviours (2014) ">Voon et al.</a> and <a href="http://www.yourbrainonporn.com/brain-structure-and-functional-connectivity-associated-pornography-consumption-2014" target="_blank" title="Brain Structure and Functional Connectivity Associated With Pornography Consumption: The Brain on Porn (2014)">Kuhn & Gallinat</a> used fMRI scanners to pinpoint structural changes and reward circuit activity.</li>
</ol>
In this study, Prause et al. compared the EEG activity of so
called "porn addicts" (average 3.8 hours of porn/week) to controls
(average 0.6 hours of porn/week). As expected, both "porn addicts" and
controls had greater EEG activity (LPP amplitude) when viewing sexual
photos. However, <i><b>t<b><i>h</i></b>e amplitude was</b></i> <i><b>smaller for the "porn addicts."</b></i><br />
<br />
<h3>
Prause et al. Actually Supports Porn Addiction</h3>
<h3>
</h3>
Expecting a greater amplitude for "porn addicts", the authors stated, "<b><i>This pattern appears different from substance addiction models</i></b>." But does that really make sense?<br />
<br />
As a researcher friend says, in any study there are results...and
there are the researcher's interpretations. The results are pretty
clear: Porn addicts paid less attention to photos of vanilla sex flashed
on the screen for one second. This is no surprise to anyone who
overconsumes today's porn.<br />
<br />
Prause's findings of lower LPP amplitudes for "porn addicts" when
compared to controls actually aligns with the addiction model,
notwithstanding her interpretation that she has "debunked porn
addiction." Her finding indicates both <a href="http://www.yourbrainonporn.com/desensitization-numbed-pleasure-response" target="_blank" title="Desensitization: A Numbed Pleasure Response">desensitization</a>
(or habituation) and tolerance, which is the need for greater
stimulation. Both are commonly seen in addicts, and, somewhat
alarmingly, have also been recorded in heavy porn users who were <i>not </i>addicts (more below).<br />
<br />
<b>Key point: If porn use had <i>no</i> effect on Prause's subjects, we would expect controls and "porn addicts" to have the <u><i>same LPP amplitude</i></u> in response to sexual photos</b>.
Instead, Prause's so-called "porn addicts" had less brain activation
(lower LPP) to still images of vanilla porn. I use quotation marks
because Prause did not actually employ a screening instrument for
internet pornography addicts, so we have no idea whether some, or any,
of her subjects were porn addicts. For Prause's claims of falsification
and the resulting dubious headlines to be legitimate, <b><u>all </u></b><u>of Prause's 55 subjects would have to have been actual porn addicts</u>. Not some, not most, but <i>every single subject</i>. All signs point to a good number of the 55 Prause subjects being non-addicts<br />
<br />
The subjects were recruited from Pocatello Idaho via online advertisements requesting people who were "<i>experiencing problems regulating their viewing of sexual images</i>”.
Pocatello Idaho is over 50% Mormon, so many of the subjects may feel
that any amount of porn use is a serious problem. In a serious
methodological flaw, none of the subjects were screened for porn
addiction. In another methodological flaw, the ad limited recruitment to
participants who had problems with <i>only</i> "sexual images". Since most compulsive porn users view streaming video clips, did this skew the participants even further?<br />
<br />
Make no mistake, neither <i>Steele et al.</i>, 2013 nor <i>Prause et al</i>.,
2015 described these 55 subjects as porn addicts or compulsive porn
users. The subjects only admitted to feeling "distressed" by their porn
use. Confirming the mixed nature of her subjects, Prause admitted in <a href="http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/the-sexual-continuum/201307/new-brain-study-questions-existence-sexual-addiction" title="New Brain Study Questions Existence of “Sexual Addiction" 2013">2013 interview</a> that some of the 55 subjects experienced only minor problems (which means they were <i>not </i>porn addicts):<br />
<blockquote>
"This study only included people who reported problems, ranging from <u>relatively minor</u> to overwhelming problems, controlling their viewing of visual sexual stimuli."</blockquote>
<b>Key point: How can you debunk the porn addiction model if many of your "porn addicts" are not really porn addicts? </b><br />
<br />
The Prause et al. finding aligns perfectly with <a href="http://www.yourbrainonporn.com/brain-structure-and-functional-connectivity-associated-pornography-consumption-2014" target="_blank" title="Brain Structure and Functional Connectivity Associated With Pornography Consumption: The Brain on Porn (2014)">Kühn & Gallinat (2014)</a><b>, </b>which
found that more porn use correlated with less brain activation in heavy
users (who were not addicts) when exposed to sexual photos (.530
seconds). Said the researchers:<br />
<blockquote>
"This is in line with the hypothesis that intense
exposure to pornographic stimuli results in a downregulation of the
natural neural response to sexual stimuli<b>." </b></blockquote>
Kühn & Gallinat also reported more porn use correlating with less
reward circuit grey matter and disruption of the circuits involved with
impulse control. In <a href="http://www.dw.com/en/pea-brain-watching-porn-online-will-wear-out-your-brain-and-make-it-shrivel/a-17681654" target="_blank">this article</a> researcher Simone Kühn, said:<br />
<blockquote>
“That could mean that regular consumption of pornography more or less wears out your reward system.”</blockquote>
Kühn says existing psychological, scientific literature suggests
consumers of porn will seek material with novel and more extreme sex
games.<br />
<blockquote>
“That would fit perfectly the hypothesis that their reward systems need growing stimulation.”</blockquote>
Put simply, men who use more porn may need greater stimulation for
the response level seen in lighter consumers, and photos of vanilla porn
are unlikely to register as all that interesting. Less interest,
equates to less attention, and lower EEG readings. End of story.<br />
<br />
<h3>
Prause et al. Concedes That Kühn & Gallinat May Be Right</h3>
<h3>
</h3>
<img alt="" class="media-image" height="165" src="https://www.yourbrainonporn.com/sites/yourbrainonporn.com/files/resize/styles/large/public/Twitter%20logo%20about%20addiction%20nonsense_2-200x165.JPG?itok=SggS2LwK" style="float: right; height: 165px; width: 200px;" width="200" />In
the discussion section, Prause et al, cited Kühn & Gallinat and
offered it as a possible explanation for the lower LPP pattern. She was
on the right track, and it's too bad her interpretation then took a
U-turn from her data. Perhaps Prause's strong biases against porn
addiction shaped her interpretations. Her former <a href="https://twitter.com/NicolePrause">Twitter slogan</a> suggests she may lack the impartiality required for scientific research:<br />
<blockquote>
"Studying why people choose to engage in sexual behaviors <b>without invoking addiction nonsense"</b></blockquote>
Incidentally, the still images employed by both Kühn and Prause
differed significantly from the 9-second "explicit" video clips used in
last year's <a href="http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0102419" target="_blank" title="Neural Correlates of Sexual Cue Reactivity in Individuals with and without Compulsive Sexual Behaviours">Cambridge study</a>,
which found similarities between porn addicts' brains and those of drug
addicts. Those researchers found greater reward center activity in porn
addicts in response to the video clips, which is typical of addicts.<br />
<br />
Internet porn studies and their interpretation are complicated by the fact that viewing pornographic images (stills or videos) <i>is</i> the addictive behavior, rather than solely a cue. By comparison, viewing images of vodka bottles <i>is</i>
a cue for an alcoholic. While that cue may light up her brain more than
a control's brain, the alcoholic needs greater amounts of alcohol to
get a buzz. The heavy porn users in the Kühn and Prause studies clearly
needed greater stimulation (videos?) to exhibit their buzz. They didn't
respond normally to mere stills. This is evidence of tolerance (and
underlying addiction-related brain changes).<br />
<br />
Updates on Nicole Prause's twitter slogan:<br />
<ol>
<li>UCLA did not renew Prause's contract. She hasn't been affiliated with any university since early 2015.</li>
<li>In October, 2015 <a href="http://www.yourbrainonporn.com/nicole-prauses-pdf-her-span-lab-website#suspended">Prause's original Twitter account is permanently suspended for harassment</a></li>
</ol>
<br />
<h3>
In Her <a href="http://www.socioaffectiveneuroscipsychol.net/index.php/snp/article/view/20770" target="_blank" title="Sexual Desire, not Hypersexuality, is Related to Neurophysiological Responses Elicited by Sexual Images (2013)">2013 EEG Study</a> and a <a href="http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/women-who-stray/201307/your-brain-porn-its-not-addictive" target="_blank">Blog Post</a> Prause States That Less Brain Activation Would Indicate Habituation or Addiction</h3>
<h3>
</h3>
<h3>
</h3>
Prause claimed that her 2013 EEG study was the first time EEG
readings were recorded for so-called "hypersexuals." Since this was a
"first" Prause admits it's pure speculation as to whether "hypersexuals"
<i>should </i>have higher or lower EEG readings than healthy controls:<br />
<blockquote>
"Given that this is the first time ERPs were recorded in
hypersexuals, and literature on addiction (higher P300) and impulsivity
(lower P300) suggest opposite predictions, the direction of the
hypersexual effect was specified mainly on theoretical grounds." [That
is, without much basis at all.]</blockquote>
As <a href="http://www.yourbrainonporn.com/sexual-desire-not-hypersexuality-related-neurophysiological-responses-elicited-sexual-images-2013" target="_blank" title="Sexual Desire, Not Hypersexuality, Is Related To Neurophysiological Responses Elicited by Sexual Images (2013)">explained here</a>
Prause's 2013 EEG study had no control group, so it could not compare
"porn addicts'" EEG readings to "non-addicts." As a result, her 2013
study told us nothing about the EEG readings for either healthy
individuals or "hypersexuals." Let's continue with Prause's views from
2013:<br />
<blockquote>
"Therefore, individuals with high sexual desire could
exhibit large P300 amplitude difference between sexual stimuli and
neutral stimuli due to salience and emotional content of the stimuli. <b>Alternatively, little or no P300 amplitude difference could be measured due to habituation to VSS.</b>"</blockquote>
In 2013, Prause said that porn addicts, when compared to controls, could exhibit <b>1)</b> <i>higher</i> EEG readings due to cue-reactivity to images, or <b>2)</b> <i>lower</i>
EEG readings due to habituation to porn (VSS). Five months before her
2013 EEG study was published, Prause and David Ley teamed up to write
this <a href="https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/women-who-stray/201307/your-brain-porn-its-not-addictive">Psychology Today blog post</a> about her upcoming study. In it they claim that "<i>diminished electrical response</i>" would indicate habituation or desensitization:<br />
<blockquote>
But, when EEG’s were administered to these individuals,
as they viewed erotic stimuli, results were surprising, and not at all
consistent with sex addiction theory. <b>If viewing pornography
actually was habituating (or desensitizing), like drugs are, then
viewing pornography would have a diminished electrical response in the
brain</b>. In fact, in these results, there was no such response.
Instead, the participants’ overall demonstrated increased electrical
brain responses to the erotic imagery they were shown, just like the
brains of “normal people”...</blockquote>
So, we have 2013 Prause saying<i> "diminished electrical response" </i>would indicate<i> </i>habituation or desensitization. Now, however, in 2015, when Prause <i>found evidence of desensitization </i>(common in addicts), she is telling us <i>"diminished electrical response" </i>debunks porn addiction. Huh?<br />
<br />
In the intervening two years it took Prause to compare her same tired
subject data with an actual control group, she has done a complete
flip-flop. Now, she claims the evidence of desensitization that she
found when she added the control group <i>isn't </i>evidence of
addiction (which she claimed in 2013 it would have been). Instead, once
again, she insists she has "disproved addiction." This is inconsistent
and unscientific, and suggests that regardless of opposing findings, she
will claim to have "disproven addiction." In fact, unless 2015 Prause
rejects the 2013 Prause study and blog post she would be obliged to "<i>invoke addiction nonsense</i>."<br />
<br />
By the way, the above excerpt -<i>"participants' overall demonstrated increased electrical brain responses to the erotic imagery" - </i>is
misleading. Of course it's normal to have a greater response to sexual
pictures than to neutral landscape pictures. However, Prause's 2013
study had no control group, and it did not compare EEG readings of porn
addicts to non-addicts. Once she added the control group, it was evident
that arousal in response to erotic imagery is normal and the effect
disappeared. Instead, her subjects turned out to be suffering from <i>desensitization</i>,
an addiction process. In short, Prause's 2013 results were meaningless
(see below), while her 2015 headlines contradict everything she had
previously stated. She claims to disprove addiction while discovering
evidence of it.<br />
<br />
<h3>
Poor Methodology Once Again</h3>
<h3>
</h3>
<b>1)</b> As with <a href="http://www.yourbrainonporn.com/sexual-desire-not-hypersexuality-related-neurophysiological-responses-elicited-sexual-images-2013" target="_blank" title="Sexual Desire, not Hypersexuality, is Related to Neurophysiological Responses Elicited by Sexual Images (2013)">Prause's 2013 EEG study</a>,
the subjects in this study were males, females and possibly
"non-heterosexuals". All evidence suggests Prause used the same subjects
for her current study and her 2013 study: the number of females are
identical (13) and the total numbers very close (52 vs. 55). If so, this
current study also <a href="http://www.researchgate.net/publication/260248374_Table_1_Demographics_with_sexual_orientation" target="_blank" title="able 1 Demographics with sexual orientation">included 7 "non-heterosexuals"</a>. This matters, because it violates standard procedure for addiction studies, in which researchers select <i>homogeneous</i> subjects in terms of age, gender, orientation, even similar IQ's (<i>plus</i>
a homogeneous control group) in order to avoid distortions caused by
such differences. This is especially critical for studies like this one,
which measured arousal to sexual images, as research confirms that men
and women have significantly different brain responses to sexual images
or films (Studies: <a data-mce-="" href="http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23519591">1,</a> <a href="http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22450197">2</a>, <a href="http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8561662">3,</a> <a data-mce-="" href="http://www.yourbrainonporn.com/skin-sympathetic-nerve-activity-humans-during-exposure-emotionally-charged-images-sex-differences"> 4,</a> <a href="http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23643564">5,</a> <a href="http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25971857">6,</a> <a href="http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15129155">7,</a> <a href="http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18343987">8,</a> <a href="http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17362952">9,</a> <a href="http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15004563">10,</a> <a href="http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22406875">11,</a> <a href="http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17668312">12,</a> <a href="http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2739403/">13,</a> <a href="http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18006098">14</a>). This flaw alone calls into question both of Prause's studies.<br />
<br />
<b>2) </b>Prause's<b> </b>subjects were not
pre-screened. Valid addiction brain studies screen out individuals with
pre-existing conditions (depression, OCD, other addictions, etc.). This
is the only way responsible researchers can draw conclusions about
addiction. See the <a href="http://www.yourbrainonporn.com/cambridge-university-brain-scans-find-porn-addiction" target="_blank">Cambridge study</a> for an example of proper screening & methodology.<br />
<br />
<b>3) </b>The two questionnaires Prause relied upon in both
EEG studies to assess "porn addiction" are not validated to screen for
internet porn use / addiction. The Sexual Compulsivity Scale (SCS) was
created in 1995 to measure sexual behavior to help with AIDS-risk
assessment, and specifically <i>not </i>validated for females. The <a href="http://personality-testing.info/tests/SCS.php" target="_blank" title="Sexual Compulsivity Scale">SCS says</a>:<br />
<blockquote>
"The scale has been should [shown?] to predict rates of
sexual behaviors, numbers of sexual partners, practice of a variety of
sexual behaviors, and histories of sexually transmitted diseases."</blockquote>
Moreover, the SCS's developer warns that this tool won't show psychopathology in women,<br />
<blockquote>
"Associations between sexual compulsivity scores and
other markers of psychopathology showed different patterns for men and
women; sexual compulsivity was associated with indexes of
psychopathology in men but not in women."</blockquote>
Like the SCS, the second questionnaire (<a href="http://https//books.google.com/books?id=gUnbAAAAQBAJ&lpg=PA148&ots=Ks2cLmarht&lr&pg=PA150#v=onepage&q&f=true" target="_blank" title="CBSOB - hypersexuality">the CBSOB</a>)
has no questions about Internet porn use. It was designed to screen for
"hypersexual" subjects, and out-of-control sexual behaviors - not
strictly the overuse of sexually explicit materials on the internet.<br />
<br />
A valid addiction "brain study" must: 1) have homogenous subjects and
controls, 2) screen out other mental disorders and other addictions,
and 3) use validated questionnaires and interviews to assure the
subjects are actually porn addicts. Prause's two EEG studies on porn
users did none of these, yet she drew vast conclusions and published
them widely.<br />
<br />
<h3>
A Pattern of Claims Unsupported by Data</h3>
<h3>
</h3>
Prause, by her own admission, rejects the concept of porn addiction,
and believes that porn use can never cause problems. For example a quote
from this recent <a href="http://failover-www.thesundaytimes.co.uk/sto/Magazine/article1561681.html" target="_blank" title="‘I sexualise every man I set my eyes on’">Martin Daubney article</a> about sex/porn addictions:<br />
<blockquote>
Dr Nicole Prause, principal investigator at the Sexual
Psychophysiology and Affective Neuroscience (Span) Laboratory in Los
Angeles, calls herself a “professional debunker” of sex addiction.</blockquote>
Such inherent biases have lead to several claims by Prause, which do not align with her experimental data.<br />
<br />
The first example is her 2013 study "<a href="http://www.socioaffectiveneuroscipsychol.net/index.php/snp/article/view/20770" title="Sexual desire, not hypersexuality, is related to neurophysiological responses elicited by sexual images">Sexual desire, not hypersexuality, is related to neurophysiological responses elicited by sexual images</a>." Five months before this study was published, Prause released it (only) to psychologist <a href="http://www.amazon.com/The-Myth-Sex-Addiction-David/dp/1442213051" target="_blank" title="The Myth of Sex Addiction Paperback ">David Ley</a>, who promptly blogged about it on <i>Psychology Today, </i>claiming
that it proved pornography addiction didn't exist. Such claims were
not, in fact, supported by the study when published. The following
excerpt is taken from this <a href="http://www.socioaffectiveneuroscipsychol.net/index.php/snp/article/view/23833/32589" target="_blank" title="High desire’, or ‘merely’ an addiction? A response to Steele et al.">peer-reviewed critique</a> of the study:<br />
<blockquote>
‘The single statistically significant finding says nothing about addiction. Furthermore, this significant finding is a <i>negative</i> correlation between P300 and desire for sex with a partner (r=−0.33), indicating that P300 amplitude is related to <i>lower</i> sexual desire; this directly contradicts the interpretation of P300 as <i>high</i> desire.
There are no comparisons to other addict groups. There are no
comparisons to control groups. The conclusions drawn by the researchers
are a quantum leap from the data, which say nothing about whether people
who report trouble regulating their viewing of sexual images have or do
not have brain responses similar to cocaine or any other kinds of
addicts.’</blockquote>
<div>
Just as in the current EEG study, Prause claimed her subjects' brains
did not respond like other addicts. In reality, her subjects had higher
EEG (P300) readings when viewing sexual images - which is exactly what
occurs when addicts view images related to their addiction. Commenting
under the <a href="http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/the-sexual-continuum/201307/new-brain-study-questions-existence-sexual-addiction" target="_blank"><i>Psychology Today </i>interview </a>with Prause's claims, <a href="http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/the-sexual-continuum/201307/new-brain-study-questions-existence-sexual-addiction/comments#comment-556448" target="_blank">senior psychology professor emeritus John A. Johnson said</a>:<br />
<blockquote>
"My mind still boggles at the Prause claim that her
subjects' brains did not respond to sexual images like drug addicts'
brains respond to their drug, given that she reports higher P300
readings for the sexual images. Just like addicts who show P300 spikes
when presented with their drug of choice. How could she draw a
conclusion that is the opposite of the actual results? I think it could
be due to her preconceptions--what she expected to find."</blockquote>
This <a href="http://www.mdpi.com/2076-328X/5/3/388">2015 review of the neuroscience literature</a> on porn addiction went further<br />
<blockquote>
The study was designed to examine the relationship
between ERP amplitudes when viewing emotional and sexual images and
questionnaire measures of hypersexuality and sexual desire. The authors
concluded that the absence of correlations between scores on
hypersexuality questionnaires and mean P300 amplitudes when viewing
sexual images “fail to provide support for models of pathological
hypersexuality” [<a href="http://www.mdpi.com/2076-328X/5/3/388/htm#B303-behavsci-05-00388">303</a>]
(p. 10). However, the lack of correlations may be better explained by
arguable flaws in the methodology. For example, this study used a
heterogeneous subject pool (males and females, including 7
non-heterosexuals). Cue-reactivity studies comparing the brain response
of addicts to healthy controls require homogenous subjects (same sex,
similar ages) to have valid results. Specific to porn addiction studies,
it’s well established that males and females differ appreciably in
brain and autonomic responses to the identical visual sexual stimuli [<a href="http://www.mdpi.com/2076-328X/5/3/388/htm#B304-behavsci-05-00388">304</a>,<a href="http://www.mdpi.com/2076-328X/5/3/388/htm#B305-behavsci-05-00388" title="">305</a>,<a href="http://www.mdpi.com/2076-328X/5/3/388/htm#B306-behavsci-05-00388">306</a>].
Additionally, two of the screening questionnaires have not been
validated for addicted IP users, and the subjects were not screened for
other manifestations of addiction or mood disorders.</blockquote>
<blockquote>
Moreover, the conclusion listed in the abstract,
“Implications for understanding hypersexuality as high desire, rather
than disordered, are discussed” [<a href="http://www.mdpi.com/2076-328X/5/3/388/htm#B303-behavsci-05-00388">303</a>]
(p. 1) seems out of place considering the study’s finding that P300
amplitude was negatively correlated with desire for sex with a partner.
As explained in Hilton (2014), this finding “directly contradicts the
interpretation of P300 as high desire” [<a href="http://www.mdpi.com/2076-328X/5/3/388/htm#B307-behavsci-05-00388">307</a>].
The Hilton analysis further suggests that the absence of a control
group and the inability of EEG technology to discriminate between “high
sexual desire” and “sexual compulsion” render the Steele et al. findings
uninterpretable [<a href="http://www.mdpi.com/2076-328X/5/3/388/htm#B307-behavsci-05-00388">307</a>].</blockquote>
<blockquote>
Finally, a significant finding of the paper (higher P300
amplitude to sexual images, relative to neutral pictures) is given
minimal attention in the discussion section. This is unexpected, as a
common finding with substance and internet addicts is an increased P300
amplitude relative to neutral stimuli when exposed to visual cues
associated with their addiction [<a href="http://www.mdpi.com/2076-328X/5/3/388/htm#B308-behavsci-05-00388">308</a>]. In fact, Voon, et al. [<a href="http://www.mdpi.com/2076-328X/5/3/388/htm#B262-behavsci-05-00388">262</a>]
devoted a section of their discussion analyzing this prior study’s P300
findings. Voon et al. provided the explanation of importance of P300
not provided in the Steele paper, particularly in regards to established
addiction models, concluding,</blockquote>
<blockquote>
<div style="margin-left: .5in;">
<i>"Thus, both dACC activity in the present CSB study and P300 activity reported in a previous CSB study[<a href="http://www.mdpi.com/2076-328X/5/3/388/htm#B303-behavsci-05-00388" title="">303</a>]
may reflect similar underlying processes of attentional capture.
Similarly, both studies show a correlation between these measures with
enhanced desire. Here we suggest that dACC activity correlates with
desire, which may reflect an index of craving, but does not correlate
with liking suggestive of on an incentive-salience model of addictions. [</i><a href="http://www.mdpi.com/2076-328X/5/3/388/htm#B262-behavsci-05-00388"><i>262</i></a><i>]" (p. 7)</i></div>
</blockquote>
<blockquote>
So while these authors [<a href="http://www.mdpi.com/2076-328X/5/3/388/htm#B303-behavsci-05-00388">303</a>]
claimed that their study refuted the application of the addiction model
to CSB, Voon et al. posited that these authors actually provided
evidence supporting said model.</blockquote>
<b>Bottom line:</b> Three peer-reviewed papers agree with our analysis. The<a href="http://yourbrainonporn.com/sexual-desire-not-hypersexuality-related-neurophysiological-responses-elicited-sexual-images-2013"> 2013 EEG study actually reported</a>
higher EEG readings (P300) when subjects were exposed to sexual photos.
A higher P300 occurs when addicts are exposed to cues (such as images)
related to their addiction. However, the study had no control group for comparison, which made the findings <span data-scayt_word="uninterpretable" data-scaytid="6">uninterpretable</span> (as explained above this current study simply found a control group for the 2013 study). In addition, the study reported greater
cue-reactivity for porn correlating to less desire for partnered sex.
Put simply: The study found greater brain activation for porn and less
desire for sex (but not less desire for masturbation). Not exactly what
the headlines claimed about porn increasing "sexual desire."<br />
<br />
Similar to Prause's current study, her second study from 2013 found
significant differences between controls and "porn addicts" - "<a href="http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/10720162.2013.772874#preview" target="_blank">No Evidence of Emotion Dysregulation in “Hypersexuals” Reporting Their Emotions to a Sexual Film (2013)</a>." As explained in <a href="http://pornstudyskeptics.blogspot.com/2013/07/study-porn-users-report-narrower.html" target="_blank">this critique</a>, the title purposely hides the actual findings. In fact, "porn addicts" had <i>less</i> emotional response when compared to controls. This is not surprising as many <a href="http://yourbrainonporn.com/can-porn-use-blunt-my-emotions" target="_blank" title="Can porn use blunt my emotions?">porn addicts report numbed feelings </a>and
emotions. Prause justified the title by saying she expected "greater
emotional response", but provided no citation for her dubious
"expectation." A more accurate title would have been: "<i>Subjects who have difficulty controlling their porn use show less emotional response to sexual films</i>". This finding aligns with Prause's current EEG study and <a href="http://www.yourbrainonporn.com/brain-structure-and-functional-connectivity-associated-pornography-consumption-2014" target="_blank" title="Brain Structure and Functional Connectivity Associated With Pornography Consumption: The Brain on Porn (2014)">Kühn & Gallinat (2014)</a>, and indicates desensitization.<br />
<br />
<br />
In 2014, she openly teamed up with David Ley - author of <i>The Myth of Sex Addiction, </i>who
has no background in the neuroscience of addiction or research - to
produce a dubious review on the subject of porn addiction: "<a href="http://www.researchgate.net/publication/258565076_The_Emperor_Has_No_Clothes_A_review_of_the_Pornography_Addiction_model" target="_blank">The Emperor Has No Clothes: A review of the “Pornography Addiction” model</a>."
It is this review that the authors cite for the astonishing proposition
that, "The Internet has [not] increased viewing of visual sexual
stimuli." Once again, virtually nothing in Ley & Prause "review"
holds up to scrutiny, as this painfully detailed critique reveals - "<a href="http://pornstudycritiques.com/the-emperor-has-no-clothes-a-fractured-fairytale-posing-as-a-review/" target="_blank" title="Edit “The Emperor Has No Clothes: A Fractured Fairytale Posing As A Review”">The Emperor Has No Clothes: A Fractured Fairytale Posing As A Review</a>."<br />
<br />
<h3>
In summary, the three Prause studies on porn users align with the <a href="http://www.yourbrainonporn.com/brain-scan-studies-porn-users">Cambridge studies</a> and <a href="http://www.yourbrainonporn.com/brain-structure-and-functional-connectivity-associated-pornography-consumption-2014" target="_blank" title="Brain Structure and Functional Connectivity Associated With Pornography Consumption: The Brain on Porn (2014)">Kühn & Gallinat (2014).</a></h3>
<h3>
</h3>
<b>1) </b><a href="http://yourbrainonporn.com/sexual-desire-not-hypersexuality-related-neurophysiological-responses-elicited-sexual-images-2013">Sexual Desire, not Hypersexuality, is Related to Neurophysiological Responses Elicited by Sexual Images (2013)</a><br />
<ul>
<li>Aligns with the 2 <a href="http://www.yourbrainonporn.com/brain-scan-studies-porn-users">Cambridge studies</a>: All 3 studies found cue-reactivity to porn, or sensitization. In addition, the Prause study reported <i>less</i> sexual desire for a partner correlating with <i>greate</i>r
cue-reactivity. In a parallel finding, the first Cambridge study
reported that 60% of subjects had difficulty achieving erections/arousal
with real partners, yet could achieve erections with porn.</li>
</ul>
<b>2)</b> <a href="http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/10720162.2013.772874#preview" target="_blank">No Evidence of Emotion Dysregulation in “Hypersexuals” Reporting Their Emotions to a Sexual Film (2013)</a><br />
<ul>
<li>Aligns with <a href="http://www.yourbrainonporn.com/brain-structure-and-functional-connectivity-associated-pornography-consumption-2014" target="_blank" title="Brain Structure and Functional Connectivity Associated With Pornography Consumption: The Brain on Porn (2014)">Kühn & Gallinat (2014)</a> in that more porn use correlated to less brain activation in response to sexual photos. Also aligns with <a href="http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20946159#" target="_blank" title="Mental- and physical-health indicators and sexually explicit media use behavior by adults.">psychological studies</a> on porn users.</li>
</ul>
<b>3) </b><a href="http://www.yourbrainonporn.com/modulation-late-positive-potentials-sexual-images-problem-users-and-controls-inconsistent-porn">Modulation of Late Positive Potentials by Sexual Images in Problem Users and Controls Inconsistent with "Porn Addiction" (2015)</a><br />
<ul>
<li>Aligns with <a href="http://www.yourbrainonporn.com/brain-structure-and-functional-connectivity-associated-pornography-consumption-2014" target="_blank" title="Brain Structure and Functional Connectivity Associated With Pornography Consumption: The Brain on Porn (2014)">Kühn & Gallinat (2014)</a> in that more porn use correlated to less brain activation in response to sexual photos.</li>
<li>Aligns perfectly with 2013 Prause who said that lower EEG amplitudes
(compared to controls) would indicate habituation or desensitization.</li>
</ul>
</div>
Wouldn't it be great if journalists and bloggers actually read
studies, and conferred with addiction neuroscientists, before rubber
stamping sexologists' press releases or sound bites? Bottom line: All <a href="http://www.yourbrainonporn.com/brain-scan-studies-porn-users" title="Brain Studies on Porn Users">brain and neuropsychological studies</a> published to date support the existence of porn addiction, including Prause's.<br />
<br />
<h3>
Does Prause profit from denying sex and porn addiction?</h3>
<br />
Finally, it should be noted that Nicole Prause now offers her "expert" testimony against "sex addiction". From her <i>Liberos</i> website (page since removed):<!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:DocumentProperties>
<o:Version>12.00</o:Version>
</o:DocumentProperties>
</xml><![endif]--><br />
<!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<w:WordDocument>
<w:View>Normal</w:View>
<w:Zoom>0</w:Zoom>
<w:TrackMoves/>
<w:TrackFormatting/>
<w:PunctuationKerning/>
<w:ValidateAgainstSchemas/>
<w:SaveIfXMLInvalid>false</w:SaveIfXMLInvalid>
<w:IgnoreMixedContent>false</w:IgnoreMixedContent>
<w:AlwaysShowPlaceholderText>false</w:AlwaysShowPlaceholderText>
<w:DoNotPromoteQF/>
<w:LidThemeOther>EN-US</w:LidThemeOther>
<w:LidThemeAsian>X-NONE</w:LidThemeAsian>
<w:LidThemeComplexScript>X-NONE</w:LidThemeComplexScript>
<w:Compatibility>
<w:BreakWrappedTables/>
<w:SnapToGridInCell/>
<w:WrapTextWithPunct/>
<w:UseAsianBreakRules/>
<w:DontGrowAutofit/>
<w:SplitPgBreakAndParaMark/>
<w:DontVertAlignCellWithSp/>
<w:DontBreakConstrainedForcedTables/>
<w:DontVertAlignInTxbx/>
<w:Word11KerningPairs/>
<w:CachedColBalance/>
</w:Compatibility>
<w:BrowserLevel>MicrosoftInternetExplorer4</w:BrowserLevel>
<m:mathPr>
<m:mathFont m:val="Cambria Math"/>
<m:brkBin m:val="before"/>
<m:brkBinSub m:val="--"/>
<m:smallFrac m:val="off"/>
<m:dispDef/>
<m:lMargin m:val="0"/>
<m:rMargin m:val="0"/>
<m:defJc m:val="centerGroup"/>
<m:wrapIndent m:val="1440"/>
<m:intLim m:val="subSup"/>
<m:naryLim m:val="undOvr"/>
</m:mathPr></w:WordDocument>
</xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<w:LatentStyles DefLockedState="false" DefUnhideWhenUsed="true"
DefSemiHidden="true" DefQFormat="false" DefPriority="99"
LatentStyleCount="267">
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="0" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="Normal"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="9" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="heading 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="9" QFormat="true" Name="heading 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="9" QFormat="true" Name="heading 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="9" QFormat="true" Name="heading 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="9" QFormat="true" Name="heading 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="9" QFormat="true" Name="heading 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="9" QFormat="true" Name="heading 7"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="9" QFormat="true" Name="heading 8"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="9" QFormat="true" Name="heading 9"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="39" Name="toc 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="39" Name="toc 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="39" Name="toc 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="39" Name="toc 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="39" Name="toc 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="39" Name="toc 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="39" Name="toc 7"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="39" Name="toc 8"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="39" Name="toc 9"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="35" QFormat="true" Name="caption"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="10" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="Title"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="1" Name="Default Paragraph Font"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="11" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="Subtitle"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="22" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="Strong"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="20" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="Emphasis"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="59" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Table Grid"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Placeholder Text"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="1" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="No Spacing"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="60" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Shading"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="61" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light List"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="62" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Grid"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="63" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="64" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="65" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="66" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="67" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="68" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="69" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="70" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Dark List"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="71" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Shading"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="72" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful List"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="73" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Grid"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="60" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Shading Accent 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="61" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light List Accent 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="62" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Grid Accent 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="63" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 1 Accent 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="64" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 2 Accent 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="65" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 1 Accent 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Revision"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="34" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="List Paragraph"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="29" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="Quote"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="30" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="Intense Quote"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="66" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 2 Accent 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="67" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 1 Accent 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="68" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 2 Accent 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="69" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 3 Accent 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="70" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Dark List Accent 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="71" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Shading Accent 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="72" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful List Accent 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="73" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Grid Accent 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="60" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Shading Accent 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="61" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light List Accent 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="62" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Grid Accent 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="63" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 1 Accent 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="64" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 2 Accent 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="65" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 1 Accent 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="66" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 2 Accent 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="67" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 1 Accent 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="68" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 2 Accent 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="69" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 3 Accent 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="70" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Dark List Accent 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="71" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Shading Accent 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="72" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful List Accent 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="73" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Grid Accent 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="60" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Shading Accent 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="61" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light List Accent 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="62" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Grid Accent 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="63" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 1 Accent 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="64" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 2 Accent 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="65" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 1 Accent 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="66" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 2 Accent 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="67" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 1 Accent 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="68" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 2 Accent 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="69" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 3 Accent 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="70" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Dark List Accent 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="71" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Shading Accent 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="72" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful List Accent 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="73" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Grid Accent 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="60" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Shading Accent 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="61" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light List Accent 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="62" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Grid Accent 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="63" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 1 Accent 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="64" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 2 Accent 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="65" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 1 Accent 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="66" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 2 Accent 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="67" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 1 Accent 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="68" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 2 Accent 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="69" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 3 Accent 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="70" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Dark List Accent 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="71" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Shading Accent 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="72" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful List Accent 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="73" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Grid Accent 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="60" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Shading Accent 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="61" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light List Accent 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="62" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Grid Accent 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="63" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 1 Accent 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="64" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 2 Accent 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="65" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 1 Accent 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="66" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 2 Accent 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="67" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 1 Accent 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="68" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 2 Accent 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="69" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 3 Accent 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="70" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Dark List Accent 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="71" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Shading Accent 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="72" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful List Accent 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="73" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Grid Accent 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="60" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Shading Accent 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="61" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light List Accent 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="62" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Grid Accent 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="63" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 1 Accent 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="64" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 2 Accent 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="65" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 1 Accent 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="66" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 2 Accent 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="67" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 1 Accent 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="68" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 2 Accent 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="69" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 3 Accent 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="70" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Dark List Accent 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="71" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Shading Accent 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="72" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful List Accent 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="73" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Grid Accent 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="19" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="Subtle Emphasis"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="21" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="Intense Emphasis"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="31" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="Subtle Reference"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="32" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="Intense Reference"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="33" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="Book Title"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="37" Name="Bibliography"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="39" QFormat="true" Name="TOC Heading"/>
</w:LatentStyles>
</xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 10]>
<style>
/* Style Definitions */
table.MsoNormalTable
{mso-style-name:"Table Normal";
mso-tstyle-rowband-size:0;
mso-tstyle-colband-size:0;
mso-style-noshow:yes;
mso-style-priority:99;
mso-style-qformat:yes;
mso-style-parent:"";
mso-padding-alt:0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt;
mso-para-margin-top:0in;
mso-para-margin-right:0in;
mso-para-margin-bottom:10.0pt;
mso-para-margin-left:0in;
line-height:115%;
mso-pagination:widow-orphan;
font-size:11.0pt;
font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
mso-ascii-font-family:Calibri;
mso-ascii-theme-font:minor-latin;
mso-hansi-font-family:Calibri;
mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin;}
</style>
<![endif]--><br />
<br />
<blockquote>
“Sex
addiction” is increasingly being used as a defense in legal
proceedings, but its scientific status is poor. We have provided expert
testimony to describe the current state of the science and acted as
legal consultants to help teams understand the current state of the
science in this area to successfully represent their client.</blockquote>
<blockquote>
Legal consultations and testimony are generally are [sic] billed on an hourly rate.</blockquote>
It seems as though Prause is attempting to sell her services to profit from the <i>claimed</i> anti-porn addiction conclusions of her two EEG studies (<a data-cke-saved-href="http://pornstudycritiques.com/uclas-span-lab-touts-empty-porn-study-as-ground-breaking/" data-mce-href="http://pornstudycritiques.com/uclas-span-lab-touts-empty-porn-study-as-ground-breaking/" href="http://pornstudycritiques.com/uclas-span-lab-touts-empty-porn-study-as-ground-breaking/" target="_blank" title="SPAN Lab Touts Empty Porn Study As Ground-Breaking">1</a>, <a data-cke-saved-href="http://pornstudycritiques.com/analysis-of-modulation-of-late-positive-potentials-by-sexual-images-in-problem-users-and-controls-inconsistent-with-porn-addiction-2015-by-span-lab/" data-mce-href="http://pornstudycritiques.com/analysis-of-modulation-of-late-positive-potentials-by-sexual-images-in-problem-users-and-controls-inconsistent-with-porn-addiction-2015-by-span-lab/" href="http://pornstudycritiques.com/analysis-of-modulation-of-late-positive-potentials-by-sexual-images-in-problem-users-and-controls-inconsistent-with-porn-addiction-2015-by-span-lab/" target="_blank" title="Analysis of “Modulation of late positive potentials by sexual images in problem users and controls inconsistent with ‘porn addiction’ (2015)”, by SPAN Lab ">2</a>), even though peer-reviewed critiques say both studies support the addiction model.<br />
<br />
As explained above, the <a data-cke-saved-href="/node/2171" data-mce-href="http://www.yourbrainonporn.com/node/2171" href="http://www.yourbrainonporn.com/node/2171" target="_blank" title="Nothing Correlates With Nothing In SPAN Lab's New Porn Study (2013)">first EEG study</a>
(Steele et al. 2013) actually found evidence for porn addiction. Her
second EEG study, analyzed here, did nothing more than compare her 2013
subjects' EEG readings with an actual control group. That's right, the
earlier 2013 study had no control group, which meant her sweeping
conclusions were unfounded. As you have read, the current study also
supports the concept of porn addiction.<br />
<br />
<b>A recovering porn-user summed the situation up here:</b><br />
<a href="https://sexualreboot.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/08/SReboot-Infographic.png" target="_blank"><img alt="" class="media-image" height="383" src="https://www.yourbrainonporn.com/sites/yourbrainonporn.com/files/resize/Prause.info_.graphic-540x383.JPG" style="height: 383px; width: 540px;" width="540" /></a><br />
<br /></div>
</div>
</div>
Concerned Observershttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17481437202179154037noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6124915000554403951.post-23024282284537526842014-02-25T20:39:00.000-08:002019-02-04T15:29:50.597-08:00‘High desire’, or ‘merely’ an addiction? A response to Steele et al. by Donald L. Hilton, Jr., MD<i>Donald L. Hilton, Jr., MD<a href="http://www.socioaffectiveneuroscipsychol.net/index.php/snp/article/view/23833/32589#AFC0001_23833"><sup>*</sup></a></i><br />
<br />
<i>Department of Neurosurgery, The University of Texas Health Sciences Center at San Antonio, USA</i><br />
<br />
<i>Published: 21 February 2014</i><br />
<br />
<i>Socioaffective Neuroscience & Psychology 2014. © 2014
Donald L. Hilton. This is an Open Access article distributed under the
terms of the Creative Commons CC-BY 4.0 License (<a href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/" target="_base">http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/</a>),
allowing third parties to copy and redistribute the material in any
medium or format and to remix, transform, and build upon the material
for any purpose, even commercially, provided the original work is
properly cited and states its license.</i><br />
<br />
<b><i>Link to original article - https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3975913/</i></b><br />----------------<br />
<br />
The validity of an argument depends on the soundness of its premises.
In the recent paper by Steele et al., conclusions are based on the
initial construction of definitions relating to ‘desire’ and
‘addiction’. These definitions are based on a series of assumptions and
qualifications, the limitations of which are acknowledged by the authors
initially, but inexplicably ignored in reaching the firm conclusions
the authors make. Yet, the firmness of these conclusions is unwarranted,
not only as a result of conceptually problematic initial premises but
also due to problematic methodology.<br />
<br />
Consider, for instance, the concept of ‘sexual desire’. The first
paragraph acknowledges that ‘sexual desires must be consistently
regulated to manage sexual behaviors’, and must be controlled when
either illegal (pedophilia) or inappropriate (infidelity). The paragraph
ends with the inference that the term ‘sexual addiction’ does not
describe a problematic entity per se, but that it merely describes a
subset of individuals with high levels of desire.<br />
<br />
The next paragraph references a paper by Winters et al., which
suggests that ‘dysregulated sexuality … may simply be a marker of high
sexual desire and the distress associated with managing a high degree of
sexual thoughts, feelings, and needs’ (Winters, Christoff, &
Gorzalka, <a href="http://www.socioaffectiveneuroscipsychol.net/index.php/snp/article/view/23833/32589#CIT0011_23833">2010</a>).
It is based on these assumptions that Steele et al. then proceeds to
question a disease model for this ‘distress’ associated with controlling
sexual ‘desire’. For a comparison of different ‘desire’ templates,
television viewing in children is used as an example. The last two
sentences in this paragraph establish the premise that the rest of the
paper then tries to prove:<br />
<blockquote>
Treatments focus on reducing the number of hours viewing
television behaviorally without a disease overlay such as ‘television
addiction’ and are effective. This suggests a similar approach might be
appropriate for high sexual desire <i>if</i> the proposed disease model
does not add explanatory power beyond merely high sexual desire.
(Steele, Staley, Fong, & Prause, <a href="http://www.socioaffectiveneuroscipsychol.net/index.php/snp/article/view/23833/32589#CIT0010_23833">2013</a>)</blockquote>
Based on this comparison, that of desire to watch TV in children and
desire for sex in adults, the authors then launch into a discussion on
event-related potentials (ERPs) and a subsequent description of their
study design, followed by results and discussion, and culminating in the
following summary:<br />
<blockquote>
In conclusion, the first measures of neural reactivity to
visual sexual and non-sexual stimuli in a sample reporting problems
regulating their viewing of similar stimuli fail to provide support for
models of pathological hypersexuality, as measured by questionnaires.
Specifically, differences in the P300 window between sexual and neutral
stimuli were predicted by sexual desire, but not by any (of three)
measures of hypersexuality. (Steele et al., <a href="http://www.socioaffectiveneuroscipsychol.net/index.php/snp/article/view/23833/32589#CIT0010_23833">2013</a>)</blockquote>
With this statement the authors put forward the premise that high
desire, even if it is problematic to those who experience it, is not
pathologic, no matter the consequence.<br />
<br />
Others have described significant limitations of this study. For
instance, author Nicole Prause stated in an interview, ‘Studies of drug
addictions, such as cocaine, have shown a consistent pattern of brain
response to images of the drug of abuse, so we predicted that we should
see the same pattern in people who report problems with sex if it was,
in fact, an addiction’. John Johnson has pointed out several critical
issues with this use of the Dunning et al. (<a href="http://www.socioaffectiveneuroscipsychol.net/index.php/snp/article/view/23833/32589#CIT0003_23833">2011</a>)
paper she cites as a basis for comparison with the Steele et al. paper.
First, the Dunning et al. paper used three controls: abstinent cocaine
users, current users, and drug naïve controls. The Steele et al. paper
had no control group of any kind. Second, the Dunning et al. paper
measured several different ERPs in the brain, including early posterior
negativity (EPN), thought to reflect early selective attention, and late
positive potential (LPP), thought to reflect further processing of
motivationally significant material. Furthermore, the Dunning study
distinguished the early and late components of the LPP, thought to
reflect sustained processing. Moreover, the Dunning et al. paper
distinguished between these different ERPs in abstinent, currently
using, and healthy control groups. The Steele et al. paper, however,
looked only at one ERP, the p300, which Dunning compared to the early
window of the LLP. The Steele et al. authors even acknowledged this
critical flaw in design: ‘Another possibility is that the p300 is not
the best place to identify relationships with sexually motivating
stimuli. The slightly later LPP appears more strongly linked to
motivation’. Steel et al. admit that they are in fact not able to
compare their results to the Dunning et al. study, yet their conclusions
effectively make such a comparison. Regarding the Steele et al. study,
Johnson summarized, ‘The single statistically significant finding says
nothing about addiction. Furthermore, this significant finding is a <i>negative</i> correlation between P300 and desire for sex with a partner (r=−0.33), indicating that P300 amplitude is related to <i>lower</i> sexual desire; this directly contradicts the interpretation of P300 as <i>high</i>
desire. There are no comparisons to other addict groups. There are no
comparisons to control groups. The conclusions drawn by the researchers
are a quantum leap from the data, which say nothing about whether people
who report trouble regulating their viewing of sexual images have or do
not have brain responses similar to cocaine or any other kinds of
addicts’ (personal communication, John A. Johnson, PhD, 2013).<br />
<br />
Although other serious deficiencies in this study design include lack
of an adequate control group, heterogeneity of study sample, and a
failure to understand the limitations of the ability of the P300 to
qualitatively and quantitatively discriminate and differentiate between
‘merely high sexual desire’ and pathologically unwanted sexual
compulsions, perhaps the most fundamental flaw relates to the use and
understanding of the term ‘desire’. It is clear that in constructing
this definitional platform, the authors minimize the concept of desire
with the word ‘merely’. Desire, as related to biological systems in the
context of sexuality, is a complex product of mesencephalic dopaminergic
drive with telencephalic cognitive and affective mediation and
expression. As a primal salience factor in sex, dopamine is increasingly
recognized as a key component in sexual motivation, which has been
widely conserved in the evolutionary tree (Pfaus, <a href="http://www.socioaffectiveneuroscipsychol.net/index.php/snp/article/view/23833/32589#CIT0008_23833">2010</a>).
Genes relating to both the design and expression of sexual motivation
are seen across phyla and also span intra-phyla complexity. While there
are obvious differences between sex, food seeking, and other behaviors,
which are essential to evolutionary fitness, we now know there are
similarities in the molecular machinery from which biologically
beneficial ‘desire’ emanates. We now know that these mechanisms are
designed to ‘learn’, in a neural connecting and modulating way. As
Hebb’s law states, ‘Neurons that fire together, wire together’. We
became aware of the brain’s ability to alter its structural connectivity
with reward learning in early studies relating to drug addiction, but
have now seen neuronal reward-based learning with such seemingly diverse
natural desires relating to sex and salt craving.<br />
<br />
Definitions relating to desire are important here; biological
salience, or ‘wanting’, is one thing, whereas we consider ‘craving’ to
have more ominous implications as it is used in the literature relating
to drug addiction and relapse. Evidence demonstrates that craving states
relating to appetites for biologically essential necessities such as
salt and sex invoke – with deprivation followed by satiation – a
neuroplastic process involving a remodeling and arborizing of neuronal
connections (Pitchers et al., <a href="http://www.socioaffectiveneuroscipsychol.net/index.php/snp/article/view/23833/32589#CIT0009_23833">2010</a>; Roitman et al., <a href="http://www.socioaffectiveneuroscipsychol.net/index.php/snp/article/view/23833/32589#CIT0013_23833">2002</a>).
Notably, a desperate desire is effected by craving states associated
with conditions that portend the possible death of the organism such as
salt deficiency, which induces the animal to satiate and avoid death.
Drug addiction in humans, interestingly, can affect a comparable craving
leading to a similar desperation to satiate in spite of the risk of
death, an inversion of this elemental drive. A similar phenomenon occurs
with natural addictions as well, such as the individual with morbid
obesity and severe cardiac disease continuing to consume a high fat
diet, or one with a sexual addiction continuing to engage in random
sexual acts with strangers despite an elevated probability of acquiring
sexually transmitted diseases such as HIV and hepatitis. That gene sets
driving signaling cascades essential to this craving conundrum are
identical for both drug addiction and the most basic of natural
cravings, salt, supports a hijacking, usurping role for addiction
(Liedtke et al., <a href="http://www.socioaffectiveneuroscipsychol.net/index.php/snp/article/view/23833/32589#CIT0007_23833">2011</a>).
We also better understand how complex systems associated with and
effecting these changes involve genetic molecular switches, products,
and modulators such as DeltaFosB, orexin, Cdk5, neural plasticity
regulator activity-regulated cytoskeleton-associated protein (ARC),
striatally enriched protein tyrosine phosphatase (STEP), and others.
These entities form a complex signaling cascade, which is essential to
neural learning.<br />
<br />
What we experience affectively as ‘craving’, or very ‘high desire’,
is a product of mesencephalic and hypothalamic impetus which projects
to, participates in, and is part of cortical processing resulting from
this convergence of conscious and unconscious information. As we
demonstrated in our recent PNAS paper, these natural craving states
‘likely reflect usurping of evolutionary ancient systems with high
survival value by the gratification of contemporary hedonic indulgences’
(Liedtke et al., <a href="http://www.socioaffectiveneuroscipsychol.net/index.php/snp/article/view/23833/32589#CIT0007_23833">2011</a>,
PNAS), in that we found that these same salt ‘craving’ gene sets were
previously associated with cocaine and opiate addiction. The cognitive
expression of this ‘desire’, this focus on getting the reward, the
‘craving’ to experience satiation again is but a conscious ‘cortical’
expression of a deeply seated and phyolgenetically primitive drive
originating in the hypothalamic/mesencephalic axis. When it results in
an uncontrolled and – when expressed – destructive craving for a reward,
how do we split neurobiological hairs and term it ‘merely’ high desire
rather than addiction?<br />
<br />
The other issue relates to immutability. Nowhere in the Steele et al.
paper is there a discussion as to why these individuals have ‘high
desire’. Were they born that way? What is the role, if any, of
environment on both qualitative and quantitative aspect of said desire?
Can learning affect desire in at least some of this rather heterogeneous
study population? (Hoffman & Safron, <a href="http://www.socioaffectiveneuroscipsychol.net/index.php/snp/article/view/23833/32589#CIT0006_23833">2012</a>).
The authors’ perspective in this regard lacks an understanding of the
process of constant modulation at both cellular and macroscopic levels.
We know, for instance, that these microstructural changes seen with
neuronal learning are associated with macroscopic changes as well.
Numerous studies confirm the importance of plasticity, as many have
compellingly argued: ‘Contrary to assumptions that changes in brain
networks are possible only during critical periods of development,
modern neuroscience adopts the idea of a permanently plastic brain’
(Draganski & May, <a href="http://www.socioaffectiveneuroscipsychol.net/index.php/snp/article/view/23833/32589#CIT0002_23833">2008</a>);
‘Human brain imaging has identified structural changes in gray and
white matter that occur with learning … learning sculpts brain
structure’ (Zatorre, Field, & Johansen-Berg, <a href="http://www.socioaffectiveneuroscipsychol.net/index.php/snp/article/view/23833/32589#CIT0012_23833">2012</a>).<br />
<br />
Finally, consider again the author’s term ‘merely high sexual desire’. Georgiadis (<a href="http://www.socioaffectiveneuroscipsychol.net/index.php/snp/article/view/23833/32589#CIT0005_23833">2012</a>)
recently suggested a central dopaminergic role for humans in this
midbrain to striatum pathway. Of all the natural rewards, sexual orgasm
involves the highest dopamine spike in the striatum, with levels up to
200% of baseline (Fiorino & Phillips, <a href="http://www.socioaffectiveneuroscipsychol.net/index.php/snp/article/view/23833/32589#CIT0004_23833">1997</a>), which is comparable with morphine (Di Chiara & Imperato, <a href="http://www.socioaffectiveneuroscipsychol.net/index.php/snp/article/view/23833/32589#CIT0001_23833">1988</a>)
in experimental models. To trivialize, minimize, and de-pathologize
compulsive sexuality is to fail to understand the central biological
role of sexuality in human motivation and evolution. It demonstrates a
naiveté with regard to what is now an accepted understanding of current
reward neuroscience, in that it pronounces sexual desire as inherent,
immutable, and uniquely immune from the possibility of change either
qualitatively or quantitatively. Even more critically, however, as
illustrated by the Steele et al. paper, is that this myopic dogma fails
to comprehend the truth that neuroscience now tells us that ‘high
desire’, when it results in compulsive, unwanted, and destructive
behavior, is ‘merely’ an addiction.<br />
<h1>
References</h1>
Di Chiara, G., & Imperato, A. (1988). Drugs abused by humans
preferentially increase synaptic dopamine concentrations in the
mesolimbic system of freely moving rats. <i>Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences</i>, <i>85</i>(14), 5274–5278. <a href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1073/pnas.85.14.5274">Publisher Full Text</a><br />
Draganski, B., & May, A. (2008). Training-induced structural changes in the adult human brain. <i>Behavioral Brain Research</i>, <i>192</i>(1), 137–142. <a href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.bbr.2008.02.015">Publisher Full Text</a><br />
Dunning, J. P., Parvaz, M. A., Hajcak, G., Maloney, T., Alia-Klein,
N., Woicik, P. A., et al. (2011). Motivated attention to cocaine and
emotional cues in abstinent and current cocaine users: An ERP study. <i>European Journal of Neuroscience</i>, <i>33</i>(9), 1716–1723. <a href="http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21450043/" target="__blank">PubMed Abstract</a> | <a href="http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3086977/" target="__blank">PubMed Central Full Text</a> | <a href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1460-9568.2011.07663.x">Publisher Full Text</a><br />
Fiorino, D. F., & Phillips, A. G. (1997). Dynamic changes in
nucleus accumbens dopamine efflux during the Coolidge Effect in male
rats. <i>Journal of Neuroscience</i>, <i>17</i>(12), 4849–4855. <a href="http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9169543/" target="__blank">PubMed Abstract</a><br />
Georgiadis, J. R. (2012). Doing it … wild? On the role of the cerebral cortex in human sexual activity. <i>Socioaffective Neuroscience and Psychology</i>, <i>2</i>, 17337. <a href="http://dx.doi.org/10.3402/snp.v2i0.17337">Publisher Full Text</a><br />
Hoffman, H., & Safron, A. (2012). Introductory editorial to ‘The Neuroscience and Evolutionary Origins of Sexual Learning’. <i>Socioaffective Neuroscience and Psychology</i>, <i>2</i>, 17415.<br />
Liedtke, W. B., McKinley, M. J., Walker, L. L., Zhang, H., Pfenning,
A. R., Drago, J., et al. (2011). Relation of addiction genes to
hypothalamic gene changes subserving genesis and gratification of a
classic instinct, sodium appetite. <i>Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences</i>, <i>108</i>(30), 12509–12514. <a href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1109199108">Publisher Full Text</a><br />
Pfaus, J. G. (2010). Dopamine: Helping males copulate for at least 200 million years. <i>Behavioral Neuroscience</i>, <i>124</i>(6), 877–880. <a href="http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21133538/" target="__blank">PubMed Abstract</a> | <a href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0021823">Publisher Full Text</a><br />
Pitchers, K. K., Balfour, M. E., Lehman, M. N., Richtand, N. M., Yu,
L., & Coolen, L. M. (2010). Neuroplasticity in the mesolimbic system
induced by natural reward and subsequent reward abstinence. <i>Biological Psychiatry</i>, <i>67</i>, 872–879. <a href="http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20015481/" target="__blank">PubMed Abstract</a> | <a href="http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2854191/" target="__blank">PubMed Central Full Text</a> | <a href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.biopsych.2009.09.036">Publisher Full Text</a><br />
Roitman, M. F., Na, E., Anderson, G., Jones, T. A., & Berstein,
I. L. (2002). Induction of a salt appetite alters dendritic morphology
in nucleus accumbens and sensitizes rats to amphetamine. <i>Journal of Neuroscience</i>, <i>22</i>(11), RC225: 1–5.<br />
Steele, V. R., Staley, C., Fong, T., & Prause, N. (2013). Sexual
desire, not hypersexuality, is related to neurophysiological responses
elicited by sexual images. <i>Socioaffective Neuroscience and Psychology</i>, <i>3</i>, 20770. <a href="http://dx.doi.org/10.3402/snp.v3i0.20770">Publisher Full Text</a><br />
Winters, J., Christoff, K., & Gorzalka, B. B. (2010). Dysregulated sexuality and high sexual desire: Distinct constructs? <i>Archives of Sexual Behavior</i>, <i>39</i>(5), 1029–1043. <a href="http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20143148/" target="__blank">PubMed Abstract</a> | <a href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10508-009-9591-6">Publisher Full Text</a><br />
Zatorre, R. J., Field, R. D., & Johansen-Berg, H. (2012).
Plasticity in gray and white: Neuroimaging changes in brain structure
during learning. <i>Nature Neuroscience</i>, <i>15</i>, 528–536. <a href="http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22426254/" target="__blank">PubMed Abstract</a> | <a href="http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3660656/" target="__blank">PubMed Central Full Text</a> | <a href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/nn.3045">Publisher Full Text</a><br />
<br />
<sup>*</sup><b>Donald L. Hilton</b><br />
4410 Medical Drive<br />
Suite 610<br />
San Antonio<br />
Texas, 77829<br />
USA<br />
Email: <a href="mailto:dhiltonjr@sbcglobal.net">dhiltonjr@sbcglobal.net</a><br />
<br />Concerned Observershttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17481437202179154037noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6124915000554403951.post-16016029541315100092013-07-29T10:19:00.000-07:002013-07-29T14:02:14.170-07:00"Don’t Call it Hypersexuality: Why we Need the Term Sex Addiction," By Linda Hatch, PhDWhat does it mean to say that sex addiction “exists” or “doesn’t
exist” apart from the fact that denying its existence or rebutting the
denials can get you your 15 minutes of fame.<br />
A diagnostic term is always a provisional construct, a tool for
organizing information about phenomena we are trying to understand and
work with. A construct will be “correct” as long as it is optimally
useful.<br />
<br />
A recent <a href="http://www.socioaffectiveneuroscipsychol.net/index.php/snp/article/view/20770">study</a>
at UCLA came out with the conclusion that that people with problematic
porn use may not be “sex addicts” and that they might just have a high
“sexual desire.” They admitted this was a very tentative conclusion,
and they hinted that no useful conclusions about sex addiction are yet
supported by the data they collected. But the headlines sound so
important. Sex addiction doesn’t exist!<br />
<br />
The study did an EEG test on people who reported problems with porn use
and found that their brains did not respond the way the researchers
hypothesized they would. From this the researchers concluded that
people with problem porn use may not be addicts. This is a gross
oversimplification of a study that is too convoluted and confusingly
designed to go into in any detail without putting you and myself to
sleep.<br />
<br />
The response to this study was that it was, to say the least, no big deal.<br />
<br />
An article in<a href="http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/the-sexual-continuum/201307/new-brain-study-questions-existence-sexual-addiction"> PsychologyToday.com</a> by a colleague of the researcher brings out some of the many questionable aspects of the study. Other articles such as a <a href="http://pornstudyskeptics.blogspot.com/2013/07/reidprause-reply-our-response.html" target="_blank">critique</a> by Dr. Rory Reid, and a critique on <a href="http://pornstudyskeptics.blogspot.com/2013/07/uclas-span-lab-touts-empty-porn-study.html">PornStudySkeptic</a>s,
have attempted to actually address the problems with the study such as
the lack of a control group, the use of certain questionnaires, the
limitation of the subjects to porn use rather than including other forms
of sexually addictive behavior, the use of still photos as sexual
stimuli, the use of content that was one woman and one man having sex,
and the use of the comparison with a past study of the same EEG response
in cocaine addicts viewing pictures related to drugs.<br />
<br />
The question that we need to ask is “is the term sex addiction the
most useful way to describe a set of behaviors and experiences from a
clinical and research standpoint?” I think the answer at this point in
history is “yes”.<br />
<br />
<i><b>Theoretical constructs</b></i><br />
When we use words to describe phenomena in science and medicine we
look for a construct that can be consistently tied to some quantifiable
data and that works as an accurate description of the specific set of
facts we are trying to work on. Then we use that term as long as it is
the most productive construct around, productive in terms of helping us
understand things and organize our research questions in such a way as
to push our knowledge forward. That construct will be correct as long as
it is useful. (I am deliberately leaving out consideration of the DSM
criteria for addiction, tolerance, withdrawal etc. as they may or may
not end up being critical to the research and treatment issues.)<br />
<br />
I believe that the term sex addiction is by far the most useful and
productive way to think about the phenomenon and that the alternatives
are misleading in terms of how we use the terms in clinical work and
research.<br />
<br />
“Hypersexuality” is a useful way to describe a symptom more than it
is a description of a disease entity. It is a symptom of dozens of
other disorders including everything from bipolar disorder to brain
damage. It has no “face validity,” meaning it doesn’t seem like it
alone can describe what our patients are experiencing. It may have
seemed like a way to get sexual addiction into the DSM which would have
been useful in its own right had it happened.<br />
<br />
“High sexual desire” and “high sex drive” are similarly not very
useful. Sex is overly important to sex addicts but to apply the label
“high desire” has no established explanatory power in this area and in
fact is circular.<br />
<br />
Some of our colleagues argue that the person who struggles with the
shame and ravages of sex addiction is simply amoral or irresponsible.
This position is totally useless and does nothing to push forward the
frontiers of knowledge. (See also my <a href="http://www.sexaddictionscounseling.com/sex-addiction-deniers-what-makes-them-so-mad/">blog</a> “Sex Addiction Deniers: What Makes Them So Mad?’)<br />
<br />
<i><b>Some important features of “sex addiction” as a diagnosis</b></i><br />
There is a saying that “<i>sex addiction isn’t about sex, it’s about pain</i>.” For sex addicts <u><i>sex is a drug to kill pain </i></u>and
escape unpleasant emotions. It may function like “speed” through
amping up general level of arousal, as when engaging in risky activities
like hook-ups with strangers or illicit behaviors. Or it may be used
to numb out as with the addict who gets lost in fantasy or porn. It
becomes the addict’s drug of choice.<br />
<br />
Addiction has for many years been described as being a pathological
relationship with a substance or behavior. Concepts like hypersexuality
appear to be inside the patient. Presumably someone could have a
heightened sex drive without ever doing anything in particular. Sex
addiction is understood as a damaging way of relating to something.<br />
<br />
Sex addiction researchers have found that those experiencing sex
addiction usually also suffer from other co-addictions as well. They
believe there is a common underlying process that involves the loss of
control over the behaviors. In fact the treatment approach is one that
looks for a “primary” addiction but assumes that the person’s other
addictions need to be addressed as part of the same treatment process.<br />
<br />
Attempting to find a new construct which distinguishes sexually
addictive behavior from its fellow-travelers means failing to make use
of the great and increasing body of work in the general field of
addiction research. Much useful information can be transposed from
findings about gambling, smoking and so on. And useful hypotheses may
emerge from this body of work in the investigation of sex addiction in
particular. But research showing that there is no parallel on one
measure does not prove anything. In fact it would be a tedious and
pointless endeavor to try to take all the research findings about
addiction over many decades and prove that they do not apply to sex
addiction. And who would want to do that?<br />
<br />
See also the recent article on brain science and compulsive sexual behavior: <a href="http://www.socioaffectiveneuroscipsychol.net/index.php/snp/article/download/20767/29178"><i>Pornography addiction — a supranormal stimulus considered in the context of neuroplasticity</i></a> by Donald L. Hilton Jr., MD<br />
<br />
<b><a href="http://blogs.psychcentral.com/sex-addiction/2013/07/dont-call-it-hypersexuality-why-we-need-the-term-sex-addiction/" target="_blank">LINK TO HER POST</a></b><br />
<br />
<ul>
<li>Also see <span style="background-color: #fff9ee; color: #222222; font-family: Georgia, Utopia, 'Palatino Linotype', Palatino, serif;"><a href="http://pornstudyskeptics.blogspot.com/2013/07/misinformed-media-touts-bogus-sex.html" target="_blank">Misinformed Media Touts Bogus Sex Addiction Study, by Robert Weiss, LCSW & Stefanie Carnes PhD</a> </span></li>
<li>and <span style="background-color: #fff9ee; color: #222222; font-family: Georgia, Utopia, 'Palatino Linotype', Palatino, serif;"><a href="http://pornstudyskeptics.blogspot.com/2013/07/uclas-span-lab-touts-empty-porn-study.html" target="_blank">UCLA's SPAN Lab Touts Empty Porn Study As Ground-Breaking</a></span></li>
</ul>
<br />
<hr />
<i>Dr. Linda Hatch was born and grew up in New York City and has
worked as a licensed clinical psychologist in California since the
1970’s. She completed her BA, MA and PhD at Cornell University and
University of California Riverside. She also taught at UCLA as an acting
assistant professor and received a post-doctoral fellowship at UCLA in
social psychology.</i><br />
<br />
<i>Dr. Hatch has been in private practice combined with teaching and
consulting for most of her career. For many years she consulted with the
Superior Court, the Probation Department, the Board of Prison Terms,
and the State Department of Mental Health during which time she provided
forensic assessment and expert testimony as well as psychotherapy. She
did considerable work with both adult and juvenile sex offenders,
mentally disordered offenders and sexually violent predators both in and
outside of the courts and prison system. Her earlier experience also
includes several years in university student counseling and crisis
intervention/critical incident debriefing. She also worked as a staff
psychologist and as training coordinator for the Santa Barbara County
Department of Alcohol, Drug and Mental Health Services before choosing
to specialize in the field of sex addiction.</i><br />
<br />
<i>Currently Dr. Hatch is in private practice in Santa Barbara as a
Certified Sex Addiction Therapist (CSAT). Prior to this she was
affiliated with Sexual Recovery Institute in Los Angeles. Her practice
is limited to the field of sexual addiction treatment including the
treatment of sex addicts and sex offenders, as well as their partners
and families.</i><br />
<br />
<i>Dr. Hatch is a member of the American Psychological Association, and
the Society for the Advancement of Sexual Health. She received her CSAT
certification through the International Institute for Trauma and
Addiction Professionals.</i>Concerned Observershttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17481437202179154037noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6124915000554403951.post-33962046408472146802013-07-25T10:13:00.002-07:002019-01-03T09:00:09.653-08:00Misinformed Media Touts Bogus Sex Addiction Study, by Robert Weiss, LCSW & Stefanie Carnes PhD<span style="font-size: large;"><i>Why the media takes one bad study and <a href="https://www.yourbrainonporn.com/relevant-research-and-articles-about-the-studies/critiques-of-questionable-debunking-propaganda-pieces/nicole-prauses-unethical-harassment-and-defamation-of-gary-wilson-others-2/#research" target="_blank">distorts its conclusions for shock value</a>.</i></span><br />
<br />
<b>Published on July 24, 2013 by <a data-cke-saved-href="http://www.psychologytoday.com/experts/robert-weiss-lcsw-csat-s" href="http://www.psychologytoday.com/experts/robert-weiss-lcsw-csat-s" title="View Bio">Robert Weiss, LCSW, CSAT-S</a> in <a data-cke-saved-href="http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/love-and-sex-in-the-digital-age" href="http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/love-and-sex-in-the-digital-age">Love and Sex in the Digital Age</a></b><br />
<img alt="" data-cke-saved-src="http://rsrc.psychologytoday.com/files/imagecache/article-inline-half/blogs/124305/2013/07/129813-129372.jpg" src="http://rsrc.psychologytoday.com/files/imagecache/article-inline-half/blogs/124305/2013/07/129813-129372.jpg" style="float: right;" title="" /><br />
<br />
In a nationally distributed <a class="ext" data-cke-saved-href="http://www.socioaffectiveneuroscipsychol.net/index.php/snp/article/view/20770/28994" href="http://www.socioaffectiveneuroscipsychol.net/index.php/snp/article/view/20770/28994" target="_blank">study</a>
published last week, a group of researchers argued that what is often
termed as “sexual addiction” could be better understood as a
pathological variation of “high sexual desire.” After the publication of
this article, a multitude of media outlets suggested that the
conclusions of this study demonstrate that there is no scientific basis
for the diagnosis of sexual addiction.
This has occurred despite the study being the first of its kind,
<a href="https://www.yourbrainonporn.com/relevant-research-and-articles-about-the-studies/critiques-of-questionable-debunking-propaganda-pieces/peer-reviewed-critiques-of-steele-et-al-2013/" target="_blank">riddled with methodological errors</a>, and at best<a href="https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/the-sexual-continuum/201307/new-brain-study-questions-existence-sexual-addiction#comment-556448" target="_blank"> inconclusive with its findings</a>. Nevertheless, it continues to get a lot of media attention,
most likely because it addresses problematic human sexual behavior,
which is always a media attention-getter.<br />
<br />
<img alt="<--break->" class="wysiwyg-break drupal-content" data-cke-saved-src="/sites/all/modules/wysiwyg/plugins/break/images/spacer.gif" src="http://www.yourbrainonporn.com/sites/all/modules/wysiwyg/plugins/break/images/spacer.gif" title="<--break-->" /><br />
In the study, researchers monitored the brain
activity (using EEG technology) of 52 men and women who self-reported
as having “problems controlling their viewing of sexual images.” The
researchers then asked these individuals to look at more than 225 still
photos - pictures of everything from violence to people skiing to men
and women being sexual together - while the EEG measured their brain
activity. Participants also completed several questionnaires about their
sexual desire and activity. Essentially, researchers were looking for a
correlation between EEG readings and the participants’ scores on the
various questionnaires, thinking that any correlations might shed light
on whether problematic porn use is caused by addiction (which is in essence a neurobiological dysfunction) or <a href="https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/comment/542939#comment-542939" target="_blank">merely a high libido</a>.<br />
<br />
Since the study’s release,<a href="https://www.yourbrainonporn.com/relevant-research-and-articles-about-the-studies/critiques-of-questionable-debunking-propaganda-pieces/uclas-span-lab-touts-empty-porn-study-as-ground-breaking-critique-of-steele-et-al-2013/" target="_blank"> critics have cited numerous flaws in it</a>, including concerns that the sample group differed significantly from treatment-seeking sex addicts and that the individual test subjects were not screened for other possible co-morbid conditions that could have interfered with the results. Additionally, there are serious questions about the strategy used to score one of the instruments in the study, which likely invalidated the measure and distorted the statistics. Basically, the
researchers’ determination of a subject’s hypersexuality was primarily
based on that individual’s responses to questions about having sex with a
partner, whereas the brain scans were used to monitor solo sexual
activity. As any sex addict can tell you, there is a huge difference in
how most of them feel about and respond to in-the-flesh sex versus
on-the-screen activity. The most readily apparent methodological error
was the research team’s misuse of the Sexual Desire Inventory (SDI).
Oddly, the researchers decided to use <i>only part</i> of this
comprehensive questionnaire - inexplicably ignoring the questions about
solo sexual activity, which, once again, was the exact activity they
were monitoring with the brain scans.<br />
<br />
Feeling confused? So are we.<br />
<br />
Furthermore,
the pre-screening of test subjects was wildly inadequate. The study
lumped anyone who reported “issues with porn” into the same category.
This means that some of the subjects were not likely porn addicts, while
others may have been severely addicted. Adding to the quagmire is the
fact that the researchers chose vastly different test subjects - men,
women, heterosexuals, and homosexuals - and then showed them all the
same heterosexually oriented sexual images (when clearly a gay
participant would not respond to heterosexual images in the same way).
In addition, the test subjects were shown only still images - hardly the
streaming HD videos and live webcam shows that most were likely used to
using.<br />
<br />
Another criticism is the authors’ reliance on EEGs to
measure subjects’ brain activity. Yes, EEGs are a useful scientific
tool, but only to a certain extent. The simple truth is EEGs measure
brain activity from the outside of the skull, making them the
neurological equivalent of a blunt instrument. This is hardly definitive
when looking at the complicated interplay of the numerous brain regions
involved in the creation and expression of sexual desire (rewards,
mood, memory, decision-making, etc.)<br />
<br />
So, in a nutshell, this study is inconclusive at best, <a href="https://www.yourbrainonporn.com/relevant-research-and-articles-about-the-studies/critiques-of-questionable-debunking-propaganda-pieces/peer-reviewed-critiques-of-steele-et-al-2013/" target="_blank">with conclusions drawn by the authors that don’t correlate to the data.</a><br />
<br />
At
least the researchers are not overtly indicating that the issue doesn’t
exist. Instead, they argue that the problem is not an addiction and
that conceptualizing it as “high sexual desire” would be more accurate.
However, these researchers did not study the same areas of the brain or
use the same technologies that have been utilized in previous research
looking at process (behavioral) addictions. In an article released in
the journal <i>Socioaffective Neuroscience and Psychology</i>, Dr.
Donald Hilton summarizes much of the brain research that does lead
scientists to believe that sex (and other natural processes) can be
addictions. For a thorough review of this scientific literature see <a class="ext" data-cke-saved-href="http://www.socioaffectiveneuroscipsychol.net/index.php/snp/article/view/20767/29178" href="https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3960020/" target="_blank">his article here</a>.
None of the brain regions looked at in Dr. Hilton’s work or the studies
he cited were discussed or examined in the recently released study.<br />
<br />
Amazingly,
despite the study’s poor design, bad execution, and obvious
limitations, the <a href="https://www.yourbrainonporn.com/relevant-research-and-articles-about-the-studies/critiques-of-questionable-debunking-propaganda-pieces/nicole-prauses-unethical-harassment-and-defamation-of-gary-wilson-others-2/#research" target="_blank">authors chose to formulate misguided conclusions</a> and
publish, even sending out an international press release touting their
“achievement.”<br />
<br />
Dr. Hilton argues that we are on the brink of a
paradigm shift in our conceptualization of process addictions. He
states, “During the shift, crisis and tension predominate, clouding the
significance of the shift in the present. Nevertheless, the new combined
paradigm that amalgamates addictions to both substances and processes
is beginning to assert itself.” This assertion is evidenced by the fact
that in the PubMed literature database the term “sexual addiction” is
used almost three times as often as any other term that describes the
disease. So is this current media frenzy simply part of the “crisis and
tension” clouding our view during the midst of a shift?<br />
<br />
Why is it
that when two excellent articles come out, one supporting the addiction
framework and one questioning it, that the media hones in on one and
distorts its conclusions for shock value? What are the resulting
repercussions for the tens of thousands of patients whose reality is
denied and invalidated? In the 1980s sex addicts were told by mental
health practitioners that their problem didn’t exist. Well, it did
exist, and because therapists didn’t help them they created their own
support groups, and now that network of “S-fellowships” provides
critical, free care to tens of thousands of people daily. So while we as
clinicians can continue to argue whether this is an addiction, a
compulsion, an impulse control problem, or high sexual desire, we should not be arguing that the problem doesn’t exist. And the media shouldn’t either.<br />
<br />
A
similar phenomenon occurred with alcoholism at the turn of the century.
Alcohol addiction was seen as a “moral failing” brought on by a “lack
of willpower.” It wasn’t until many years later, when we began to fully
understand the disease concept of addiction, that it became better
understood. So why is it that society would rather call sex addicts
“womanizers” and “schmucks” than use a paradigm that is helpful?<br />
<br />
So, let’s consider the repercussions of our labels… So far we have sex addiction, sexual compulsion, impulse control disorder, hypersexual behavior disorder,
out-of-control sexual behavior, problematic sexual behavior, and now a
new one: high sexual desire. Using the label “sex addiction” rather than the others has a multitude of advantages. First, it is the language that the clients speak. Clients do not come to therapy because they think they have “hypersexual behavior disorder,” they come because they are “sex addicts.” Second, it is the term most often used by physicians. Third, by using an addiction perspective you can reduce the shame,
normalize the behavior, provide lots of ancillary resources and
materials, and immerse the client in a community of support that
involves accountability and taking responsibility for one’s behavior. In
contrast, how are we as therapists to effectively help a patient with
his or her “high sexual desire”?<br />
<br />
And <a href="https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3975913/" target="_blank">when did high sexual desire and sexual addiction become mutually exclusive concepts</a>? Simply put,
diagnosing a person as having a high sexual desire does not rule out
sexual addiction. In fact, the research discussed above does nothing to
refute the concept of sexual addiction and <a href="https://www.yourbrainonporn.com/relevant-research-and-articles-about-the-studies/" target="_blank">the growing body of literature that supports that idea</a>. Either way, until a definitive
ruling is out, let’s stick to the label that’s clinically useful
(especially since it looks like the <a href="https://www.yourbrainonporn.com/relevant-research-and-articles-about-the-studies/brain-studies-on-porn-users-sex-addicts/" target="_blank">majority of the existing research supports that paradigm</a>).<br />
<br />
Also see <span style="background-color: #fff9ee; color: #222222; font-family: "georgia" , "utopia" , "palatino linotype" , "palatino" , serif;"><a href="http://pornstudyskeptics.blogspot.com/2013/07/dont-call-it-hypersexuality-why-we-need.html" target="_blank">"Don’t Call it Hypersexuality: Why we Need the Term Sex Addiction," By Linda Hatch, PhD</a></span><br />
and <span style="background-color: #fff9ee; color: #222222; font-family: "georgia" , "utopia" , "palatino linotype" , "palatino" , serif;"><a href="http://pornstudyskeptics.blogspot.com/2013/07/uclas-span-lab-touts-empty-porn-study.html" target="_blank">UCLA's SPAN Lab Touts Empty Porn Study As Ground-Breaking</a></span><br />
________________________ <br />
<br />
Robert Weiss LCSW, CSAT-S is Senior Vice President of Clinical Development with <a class="ext" data-cke-saved-href="http://www.elementsbehavioralhealth.com/treatment/sexual-addiction/" href="http://www.elementsbehavioralhealth.com/treatment/sexual-addiction/" target="_blank">Elements Behavioral Health</a>. A licensed UCLA MSW graduate and personal trainee of Dr. Patrick Carnes, he founded <a class="ext" data-cke-saved-href="http://www.sexualrecovery.com/about/founder.php" href="http://www.sexualrecovery.com/about/founder.php" target="_blank">The Sexual Recovery Institute</a> in Los Angeles in 1995. He has developed clinical programs for <a class="ext" data-cke-saved-href="http://www.recoveryranch.com/treatment-programs/sexual-recovery/" href="http://www.recoveryranch.com/treatment-programs/sexual-recovery/" target="_blank">The Ranch in Nunnelly, Tennessee</a>, <a class="ext" data-cke-saved-href="http://www.promises.com/treatment-programs/stimulant-and-sexual-disorders-program-at-promises-malibu/" href="http://www.promises.com/treatment-programs/stimulant-and-sexual-disorders-program-at-promises-malibu/" target="_blank">Promises Treatment Centers in Malibu</a>,
and the aforementioned Sexual Recovery Institute in Los Angeles.He has
also provided clinical multi-addiction training and behavioral health
program development for the US military and numerous other treatment
centers throughout the United States, Europe, and Asia.<br />
<br />
Dr. Stefanie Carnes, Ph.D. is a licensed <a class="pt-basics-link" data-cke-saved-href="http://www.psychologytoday.com/basics/marriage" href="http://www.psychologytoday.com/basics/marriage" title="Psychology Today looks at Marriage">marriage</a>
and family therapist and an AAMFT approved supervisor. Her area of
expertise includes working with patients and families struggling with
multiple addictions such as sexual addiction, <a class="pt-basics-link" data-cke-saved-href="http://www.psychologytoday.com/conditions/eating-disorders" href="http://www.psychologytoday.com/conditions/eating-disorders" title="Psychology Today looks at Eating Disorders">eating disorders</a> and chemical dependency. Dr. Carnes is also a certified <a class="pt-basics-link" data-cke-saved-href="http://www.psychologytoday.com/conditions/sex-and-love-addiction" href="http://www.psychologytoday.com/conditions/sex-and-love-addiction" title="Psychology Today looks at Sex and Love Addiction">sex addiction</a>
therapist and supervisor, specializing in therapy for couples and
families struggling with sexual addiction. Currently, she is the
president of the <a class="ext" data-cke-saved-href="http://www.iitap.com/" href="http://www.iitap.com/" target="_blank">International Institute for Trauma and Addiction Professionals</a>. She is also the author of numerous research articles and publications including her books, <i>Mending a Shattered Heart: A Guide for Partners of Sex Addicts</i>, <i>Facing Addiction: Starting Recovery from Alcohol and <a class="pt-basics-link" data-cke-saved-href="http://www.psychologytoday.com/basics/psychopharmacology" href="http://www.psychologytoday.com/basics/psychopharmacology" title="Psychology Today looks at Psychopharmacology">Drugs</a></i>, and <i>Facing Heartbreak: Steps to Recovery for Partners of Sex Addicts</i>.Concerned Observershttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17481437202179154037noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6124915000554403951.post-65643614786946797712013-07-23T16:12:00.000-07:002019-11-17T20:47:17.934-08:00The Rory Reid So-called Critique of Steele et al., 2013 - and Our Response<table border="0" style="width: 813px;"><tbody>
<tr><td width="630"><br />
Why have we written a response to a blog post <i>claimed</i> to be written by <a href="https://www.yourbrainonporn.com/book/nicole-prauses-unethical-harassment-and-defamation-of-gary-wilson-others/" title="Nicole Prause's Unethical Harassment and Defamation of Gary Wilson & Others">Nicole Prause's</a> UCLA colleague, Rory Reid<b>? </b>The blog post also claims to be a "critique" of Prause's July 2013 EEG study, (<i><a data-cke-saved-href="http://www.socioaffectiveneuroscipsychol.net/index.php/snp/article/view/20770" href="http://www.socioaffectiveneuroscipsychol.net/index.php/snp/article/view/20770" target="_blank">Sexual Desire, not <span data-scayt_word="Hypersexuality" data-scaytid="3">Hypersexuality</span>, is Related to <span data-scayt_word="Neurophysiological" data-scaytid="8">Neurophysiological</span> Responses Elicited by Sexual Images</a></i>). Instead, it is a veiled defense of <span data-scayt_word="Prause's" data-scaytid="5">the Prause</span>
EEG study.<b> One give away is that Reid mentions Gary Wilson ten times in his
"critique"</b>. Another give away is that Rory Reid states 3 times that Gary Wilson's <a data-cke-saved-href="/node/2171" href="http://yourbrainonporn.com/node/2171" target="_blank" title="Nothing Correlates With Nothing In SPAN Lab's New Porn Study (2013).">Psychology Today post </a>analyzing <span data-scayt_word="Prause's" data-scaytid="6">Prause's</span> study is no longer published. Both Reid and <span data-scayt_word="Prause" data-scaytid="250">Prause</span> know very well why it's missing: <a href="https://www.yourbrainonporn.com/nicole-prauses-pdf-her-span-lab-website#emails" target="_blank">Prause pressured Psychology Today</a> to remove not only Wilson's post, but <a data-cke-saved-href="http://pornstudycritiques.com/misinformed-media-touts-bogus-sex-addiction-study-by-robert-weiss-lcsw-stefanie-carnes-phd/" href="http://pornstudyskeptics.blogspot.com/2013/07/misinformed-media-touts-bogus-sex.html" target="_blank" title="Misinformed Media Touts Bogus Sex Addiction Study, by Robert Weiss, LCSW & Stefanie Carnes PhD ">this post </a>by two other bloggers.
Reid's critique fails to address any of our major points, or explain
away <a href="https://yourbrainonporn.com/nothing-correlates-nothing-span-labs-new-porn-study-2013#short" target="_blank">Prause's misrepresentations to the press.</a> Instead, Reid deflects criticism by mischaracterizing what my analysis actually said.<br />
<br />
<!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:OfficeDocumentSettings>
<o:AllowPNG/>
</o:OfficeDocumentSettings>
</xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<w:WordDocument>
<w:View>Normal</w:View>
<w:Zoom>0</w:Zoom>
<w:TrackMoves/>
<w:TrackFormatting/>
<w:PunctuationKerning/>
<w:ValidateAgainstSchemas/>
<w:SaveIfXMLInvalid>false</w:SaveIfXMLInvalid>
<w:IgnoreMixedContent>false</w:IgnoreMixedContent>
<w:AlwaysShowPlaceholderText>false</w:AlwaysShowPlaceholderText>
<w:DoNotPromoteQF/>
<w:LidThemeOther>EN-US</w:LidThemeOther>
<w:LidThemeAsian>X-NONE</w:LidThemeAsian>
<w:LidThemeComplexScript>X-NONE</w:LidThemeComplexScript>
<w:Compatibility>
<w:BreakWrappedTables/>
<w:SnapToGridInCell/>
<w:WrapTextWithPunct/>
<w:UseAsianBreakRules/>
<w:DontGrowAutofit/>
<w:SplitPgBreakAndParaMark/>
<w:EnableOpenTypeKerning/>
<w:DontFlipMirrorIndents/>
<w:OverrideTableStyleHps/>
</w:Compatibility>
<m:mathPr>
<m:mathFont m:val="Cambria Math"/>
<m:brkBin m:val="before"/>
<m:brkBinSub m:val="--"/>
<m:smallFrac m:val="off"/>
<m:dispDef/>
<m:lMargin m:val="0"/>
<m:rMargin m:val="0"/>
<m:defJc m:val="centerGroup"/>
<m:wrapIndent m:val="1440"/>
<m:intLim m:val="subSup"/>
<m:naryLim m:val="undOvr"/>
</m:mathPr></w:WordDocument>
</xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<w:LatentStyles DefLockedState="false" DefUnhideWhenUsed="false"
DefSemiHidden="false" DefQFormat="false" DefPriority="99"
LatentStyleCount="376">
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="0" QFormat="true" Name="Normal"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="9" QFormat="true" Name="heading 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="9" SemiHidden="true"
UnhideWhenUsed="true" QFormat="true" Name="heading 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="9" SemiHidden="true"
UnhideWhenUsed="true" QFormat="true" Name="heading 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="9" SemiHidden="true"
UnhideWhenUsed="true" QFormat="true" Name="heading 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="9" SemiHidden="true"
UnhideWhenUsed="true" QFormat="true" Name="heading 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="9" SemiHidden="true"
UnhideWhenUsed="true" QFormat="true" Name="heading 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="9" SemiHidden="true"
UnhideWhenUsed="true" QFormat="true" Name="heading 7"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="9" SemiHidden="true"
UnhideWhenUsed="true" QFormat="true" Name="heading 8"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="9" SemiHidden="true"
UnhideWhenUsed="true" QFormat="true" Name="heading 9"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="index 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="index 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="index 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="index 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="index 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="index 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="index 7"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="index 8"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="index 9"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="39" SemiHidden="true"
UnhideWhenUsed="true" Name="toc 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="39" SemiHidden="true"
UnhideWhenUsed="true" Name="toc 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="39" SemiHidden="true"
UnhideWhenUsed="true" Name="toc 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="39" SemiHidden="true"
UnhideWhenUsed="true" Name="toc 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="39" SemiHidden="true"
UnhideWhenUsed="true" Name="toc 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="39" SemiHidden="true"
UnhideWhenUsed="true" Name="toc 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="39" SemiHidden="true"
UnhideWhenUsed="true" Name="toc 7"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="39" SemiHidden="true"
UnhideWhenUsed="true" Name="toc 8"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="39" SemiHidden="true"
UnhideWhenUsed="true" Name="toc 9"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="Normal Indent"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="footnote text"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="annotation text"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="header"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="footer"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="index heading"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="35" SemiHidden="true"
UnhideWhenUsed="true" QFormat="true" Name="caption"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="table of figures"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="envelope address"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="envelope return"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="footnote reference"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="annotation reference"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="line number"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="page number"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="endnote reference"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="endnote text"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="table of authorities"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="macro"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="toa heading"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="List"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="List Bullet"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="List Number"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="List 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="List 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="List 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="List 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="List Bullet 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="List Bullet 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="List Bullet 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="List Bullet 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="List Number 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="List Number 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="List Number 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="List Number 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="10" QFormat="true" Name="Title"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="Closing"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="Signature"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="1" SemiHidden="true"
UnhideWhenUsed="true" Name="Default Paragraph Font"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="Body Text"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="Body Text Indent"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="List Continue"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="List Continue 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="List Continue 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="List Continue 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="List Continue 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="Message Header"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="11" QFormat="true" Name="Subtitle"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="Salutation"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="Date"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="Body Text First Indent"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="Body Text First Indent 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="Note Heading"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="Body Text 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="Body Text 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="Body Text Indent 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="Body Text Indent 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="Block Text"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="Hyperlink"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="FollowedHyperlink"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="22" QFormat="true" Name="Strong"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="20" QFormat="true" Name="Emphasis"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="Document Map"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="Plain Text"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="E-mail Signature"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="HTML Top of Form"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="HTML Bottom of Form"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="Normal (Web)"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="HTML Acronym"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="HTML Address"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="HTML Cite"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="HTML Code"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="HTML Definition"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="HTML Keyboard"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="HTML Preformatted"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="HTML Sample"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="HTML Typewriter"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="HTML Variable"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="Normal Table"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="annotation subject"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="No List"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="Outline List 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="Outline List 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="Outline List 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="Table Simple 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="Table Simple 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="Table Simple 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="Table Classic 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="Table Classic 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="Table Classic 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="Table Classic 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="Table Colorful 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="Table Colorful 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="Table Colorful 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="Table Columns 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="Table Columns 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="Table Columns 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="Table Columns 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="Table Columns 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="Table Grid 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="Table Grid 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="Table Grid 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="Table Grid 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="Table Grid 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="Table Grid 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="Table Grid 7"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="Table Grid 8"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="Table List 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="Table List 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="Table List 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="Table List 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="Table List 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="Table List 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="Table List 7"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="Table List 8"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="Table 3D effects 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="Table 3D effects 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="Table 3D effects 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="Table Contemporary"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="Table Elegant"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="Table Professional"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="Table Subtle 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="Table Subtle 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="Table Web 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="Table Web 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="Table Web 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="Balloon Text"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="39" Name="Table Grid"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="Table Theme"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" Name="Placeholder Text"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="1" QFormat="true" Name="No Spacing"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="60" Name="Light Shading"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="61" Name="Light List"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="62" Name="Light Grid"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="63" Name="Medium Shading 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="64" Name="Medium Shading 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="65" Name="Medium List 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="66" Name="Medium List 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="67" Name="Medium Grid 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="68" Name="Medium Grid 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="69" Name="Medium Grid 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="70" Name="Dark List"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="71" Name="Colorful Shading"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="72" Name="Colorful List"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="73" Name="Colorful Grid"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="60" Name="Light Shading Accent 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="61" Name="Light List Accent 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="62" Name="Light Grid Accent 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="63" Name="Medium Shading 1 Accent 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="64" Name="Medium Shading 2 Accent 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="65" Name="Medium List 1 Accent 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" Name="Revision"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="34" QFormat="true"
Name="List Paragraph"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="29" QFormat="true" Name="Quote"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="30" QFormat="true"
Name="Intense Quote"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="66" Name="Medium List 2 Accent 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="67" Name="Medium Grid 1 Accent 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="68" Name="Medium Grid 2 Accent 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="69" Name="Medium Grid 3 Accent 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="70" Name="Dark List Accent 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="71" Name="Colorful Shading Accent 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="72" Name="Colorful List Accent 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="73" Name="Colorful Grid Accent 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="60" Name="Light Shading Accent 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="61" Name="Light List Accent 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="62" Name="Light Grid Accent 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="63" Name="Medium Shading 1 Accent 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="64" Name="Medium Shading 2 Accent 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="65" Name="Medium List 1 Accent 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="66" Name="Medium List 2 Accent 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="67" Name="Medium Grid 1 Accent 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="68" Name="Medium Grid 2 Accent 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="69" Name="Medium Grid 3 Accent 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="70" Name="Dark List Accent 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="71" Name="Colorful Shading Accent 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="72" Name="Colorful List Accent 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="73" Name="Colorful Grid Accent 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="60" Name="Light Shading Accent 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="61" Name="Light List Accent 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="62" Name="Light Grid Accent 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="63" Name="Medium Shading 1 Accent 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="64" Name="Medium Shading 2 Accent 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="65" Name="Medium List 1 Accent 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="66" Name="Medium List 2 Accent 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="67" Name="Medium Grid 1 Accent 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="68" Name="Medium Grid 2 Accent 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="69" Name="Medium Grid 3 Accent 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="70" Name="Dark List Accent 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="71" Name="Colorful Shading Accent 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="72" Name="Colorful List Accent 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="73" Name="Colorful Grid Accent 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="60" Name="Light Shading Accent 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="61" Name="Light List Accent 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="62" Name="Light Grid Accent 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="63" Name="Medium Shading 1 Accent 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="64" Name="Medium Shading 2 Accent 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="65" Name="Medium List 1 Accent 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="66" Name="Medium List 2 Accent 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="67" Name="Medium Grid 1 Accent 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="68" Name="Medium Grid 2 Accent 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="69" Name="Medium Grid 3 Accent 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="70" Name="Dark List Accent 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="71" Name="Colorful Shading Accent 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="72" Name="Colorful List Accent 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="73" Name="Colorful Grid Accent 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="60" Name="Light Shading Accent 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="61" Name="Light List Accent 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="62" Name="Light Grid Accent 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="63" Name="Medium Shading 1 Accent 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="64" Name="Medium Shading 2 Accent 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="65" Name="Medium List 1 Accent 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="66" Name="Medium List 2 Accent 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="67" Name="Medium Grid 1 Accent 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="68" Name="Medium Grid 2 Accent 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="69" Name="Medium Grid 3 Accent 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="70" Name="Dark List Accent 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="71" Name="Colorful Shading Accent 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="72" Name="Colorful List Accent 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="73" Name="Colorful Grid Accent 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="60" Name="Light Shading Accent 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="61" Name="Light List Accent 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="62" Name="Light Grid Accent 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="63" Name="Medium Shading 1 Accent 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="64" Name="Medium Shading 2 Accent 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="65" Name="Medium List 1 Accent 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="66" Name="Medium List 2 Accent 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="67" Name="Medium Grid 1 Accent 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="68" Name="Medium Grid 2 Accent 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="69" Name="Medium Grid 3 Accent 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="70" Name="Dark List Accent 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="71" Name="Colorful Shading Accent 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="72" Name="Colorful List Accent 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="73" Name="Colorful Grid Accent 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="19" QFormat="true"
Name="Subtle Emphasis"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="21" QFormat="true"
Name="Intense Emphasis"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="31" QFormat="true"
Name="Subtle Reference"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="32" QFormat="true"
Name="Intense Reference"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="33" QFormat="true" Name="Book Title"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="37" SemiHidden="true"
UnhideWhenUsed="true" Name="Bibliography"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="39" SemiHidden="true"
UnhideWhenUsed="true" QFormat="true" Name="TOC Heading"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="41" Name="Plain Table 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="42" Name="Plain Table 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="43" Name="Plain Table 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="44" Name="Plain Table 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="45" Name="Plain Table 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="40" Name="Grid Table Light"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="46" Name="Grid Table 1 Light"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="47" Name="Grid Table 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="48" Name="Grid Table 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="49" Name="Grid Table 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="50" Name="Grid Table 5 Dark"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="51" Name="Grid Table 6 Colorful"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="52" Name="Grid Table 7 Colorful"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="46"
Name="Grid Table 1 Light Accent 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="47" Name="Grid Table 2 Accent 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="48" Name="Grid Table 3 Accent 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="49" Name="Grid Table 4 Accent 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="50" Name="Grid Table 5 Dark Accent 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="51"
Name="Grid Table 6 Colorful Accent 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="52"
Name="Grid Table 7 Colorful Accent 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="46"
Name="Grid Table 1 Light Accent 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="47" Name="Grid Table 2 Accent 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="48" Name="Grid Table 3 Accent 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="49" Name="Grid Table 4 Accent 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="50" Name="Grid Table 5 Dark Accent 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="51"
Name="Grid Table 6 Colorful Accent 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="52"
Name="Grid Table 7 Colorful Accent 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="46"
Name="Grid Table 1 Light Accent 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="47" Name="Grid Table 2 Accent 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="48" Name="Grid Table 3 Accent 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="49" Name="Grid Table 4 Accent 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="50" Name="Grid Table 5 Dark Accent 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="51"
Name="Grid Table 6 Colorful Accent 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="52"
Name="Grid Table 7 Colorful Accent 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="46"
Name="Grid Table 1 Light Accent 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="47" Name="Grid Table 2 Accent 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="48" Name="Grid Table 3 Accent 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="49" Name="Grid Table 4 Accent 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="50" Name="Grid Table 5 Dark Accent 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="51"
Name="Grid Table 6 Colorful Accent 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="52"
Name="Grid Table 7 Colorful Accent 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="46"
Name="Grid Table 1 Light Accent 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="47" Name="Grid Table 2 Accent 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="48" Name="Grid Table 3 Accent 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="49" Name="Grid Table 4 Accent 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="50" Name="Grid Table 5 Dark Accent 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="51"
Name="Grid Table 6 Colorful Accent 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="52"
Name="Grid Table 7 Colorful Accent 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="46"
Name="Grid Table 1 Light Accent 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="47" Name="Grid Table 2 Accent 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="48" Name="Grid Table 3 Accent 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="49" Name="Grid Table 4 Accent 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="50" Name="Grid Table 5 Dark Accent 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="51"
Name="Grid Table 6 Colorful Accent 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="52"
Name="Grid Table 7 Colorful Accent 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="46" Name="List Table 1 Light"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="47" Name="List Table 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="48" Name="List Table 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="49" Name="List Table 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="50" Name="List Table 5 Dark"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="51" Name="List Table 6 Colorful"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="52" Name="List Table 7 Colorful"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="46"
Name="List Table 1 Light Accent 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="47" Name="List Table 2 Accent 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="48" Name="List Table 3 Accent 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="49" Name="List Table 4 Accent 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="50" Name="List Table 5 Dark Accent 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="51"
Name="List Table 6 Colorful Accent 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="52"
Name="List Table 7 Colorful Accent 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="46"
Name="List Table 1 Light Accent 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="47" Name="List Table 2 Accent 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="48" Name="List Table 3 Accent 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="49" Name="List Table 4 Accent 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="50" Name="List Table 5 Dark Accent 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="51"
Name="List Table 6 Colorful Accent 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="52"
Name="List Table 7 Colorful Accent 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="46"
Name="List Table 1 Light Accent 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="47" Name="List Table 2 Accent 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="48" Name="List Table 3 Accent 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="49" Name="List Table 4 Accent 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="50" Name="List Table 5 Dark Accent 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="51"
Name="List Table 6 Colorful Accent 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="52"
Name="List Table 7 Colorful Accent 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="46"
Name="List Table 1 Light Accent 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="47" Name="List Table 2 Accent 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="48" Name="List Table 3 Accent 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="49" Name="List Table 4 Accent 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="50" Name="List Table 5 Dark Accent 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="51"
Name="List Table 6 Colorful Accent 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="52"
Name="List Table 7 Colorful Accent 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="46"
Name="List Table 1 Light Accent 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="47" Name="List Table 2 Accent 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="48" Name="List Table 3 Accent 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="49" Name="List Table 4 Accent 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="50" Name="List Table 5 Dark Accent 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="51"
Name="List Table 6 Colorful Accent 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="52"
Name="List Table 7 Colorful Accent 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="46"
Name="List Table 1 Light Accent 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="47" Name="List Table 2 Accent 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="48" Name="List Table 3 Accent 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="49" Name="List Table 4 Accent 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="50" Name="List Table 5 Dark Accent 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="51"
Name="List Table 6 Colorful Accent 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="52"
Name="List Table 7 Colorful Accent 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="Mention"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="Smart Hyperlink"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="Hashtag"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="Unresolved Mention"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="Smart Link"/>
</w:LatentStyles>
</xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 10]>
<style>
/* Style Definitions */
table.MsoNormalTable
{mso-style-name:"Table Normal";
mso-tstyle-rowband-size:0;
mso-tstyle-colband-size:0;
mso-style-noshow:yes;
mso-style-priority:99;
mso-style-parent:"";
mso-padding-alt:0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt;
mso-para-margin-top:0in;
mso-para-margin-right:0in;
mso-para-margin-bottom:8.0pt;
mso-para-margin-left:0in;
line-height:107%;
mso-pagination:widow-orphan;
font-size:11.0pt;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;
mso-ascii-font-family:Calibri;
mso-ascii-theme-font:minor-latin;
mso-hansi-font-family:Calibri;
mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin;
mso-bidi-font-family:"Times New Roman";
mso-bidi-theme-font:minor-bidi;}
</style>
<![endif]-->
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; mso-margin-bottom-alt: auto; mso-margin-top-alt: auto;">
<b><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";">UPDATE: </span></b><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";">Before we get to Rory Reid’s critique
and <i>Steele et al.</i>‘s actual findings, much has transpired since July,
2013. UCLA did not renew Nicole Prause’s contract (around January, 2015). No
longer an academic Prause has accumulated a <a href="https://www.yourbrainonporn.com/nicole-prauses-pdf-her-span-lab-website"><span style="color: blue;">long history</span></a> of harassing and defaming Gary
Wilson and others, </span>including researchers, medical doctors, therapists, psychologists,
colleagues from her short stint at UCLA, a UK charity, men in recovery, a
<em>TIME </em>magazine editor, several professors, IITAP, SASH, Fight The New Drug, Exodus Cry, the academic journal <em>Behavioral Sciences</em>, its parent company MDPI, US Navy medical doctors, the head of the academic journal <em>CUREUS, </em>and the journal <em>Sexual Addiction & Compulsivity</em>.<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";"> See: <b><a href="https://www.yourbrainonporn.com/relevant-research-and-articles-about-the-studies/critiques-of-questionable-debunking-propaganda-pieces/nicole-prauses-unethical-harassment-and-defamation-of-gary-wilson-others/" target="_blank"><span style="color: blue;">Documentation of Nicole Prause
libeling and harassing Gary Wilson & many others</span></a> ( and <a href="https://www.yourbrainonporn.com/relevant-research-and-articles-about-the-studies/critiques-of-questionable-debunking-propaganda-pieces/nicole-prauses-unethical-harassment-and-defamation-of-gary-wilson-others-2/" target="_blank" title="Nicole Prause’s Unethical Harassment and Defamation of Gary Wilson & Others (page 2)"><span style="color: blue;">now a second page</span></a>).</b></span></div>
<br />
<br />
============================================<br />
<h2>
<b>Critique of Prause Study</b></h2>
<span style="color: red;"><b>By Rory C. Reid, Ph.D., LCSW</b></span><br />
<b>Assistant Professor Research Psychologist, UCLA Resnick Neuropsychiatric Hospital</b><b>, Department of Psychiatry, University of California, Los Angeles</b><br />
<br />
There has been a lot of media attention to a recent study conducted
by Dr. Nicole Prause and her colleagues titled “Sexual desire, not
hypersexuality, is related to neurophysiological responses elicited by
sexual images” published in <i>Journal of Socioaffective Neuroscience &</i> <i>Psychology</i>.
My mailbox has been flooded with inquiries from colleagues, patients,
and media about my reaction to this study. I’ve responded to some media
requests such as Time Magazine to provide a balanced perspective. First,
let me say that Dr. Prause is a credible researcher and her office is
right next to mine here at UCLA. We have things we agree on and
certainly have had our differences which we respectfully debate with
each other on a regular basis. One of my initial reactions to this paper
is that we should be thanking her for raising the bar on the debates
around the phenomenon of hypersexual behavior. While most of my
colleagues know I don’t advocate an “addiction” model per se for
hypersexuality, this is merely based on scientific evidence which I
believe is lacking to characterize it as such at the present time. I
have published this position with colleagues elsewhere for review (Kor,
Fogel, Reid, & Potenza, 2013). I also work with patients seeking
help for hypersexual behavior and many of these individuals perceive
themselves as having an “addiction” and I don’t discount their beliefs
in therapy based on scientific nomenclature. Although Dr. Prause and I
have both been trained in the scientist practitioner model, she is more
of a scientist and does not currently see patients although she is
qualified to do so and taught doctoral practica on the topic in the
past. Subsequently, she is looking at this issue through the lens of a
scientist and using scientific methods to investigate sexually
dysregulated behavior. I suspect Dr. Prause would acknowledge there are
individuals who struggle with regulating their pornography consumption
or the frequency of their sexual behavior with partners, commercial sex
workers, and so forth; in fact, she seems to be acknowledging exactly
this in all her media appearances. However, she would diverge from a
common position that such patterns of behavior should be characterized
as a “disease” or “addiction” without scientific evidence. So her recent
study is challenging the validity of an addiction model or a theory of
addiction to explain this phenomenon of sexually dysregulated behavior.
An extension of her study would raise a larger question for debate: <i>what is an</i> <i>addiction</i>?
This is all very important to understand given her present study at its
foundation does not address the issue of whether individuals seeking
help for sex addiction, hypersexuality, etc… are experiencing a
legitimate problem. It asks whether an addiction theory is the best
explanation for this problem or whether there are alternative
explanations that help us better understand this phenomenon. That’s it!
Somewhere in the mix up, the media has taken this and distorted it to
suggest Dr. Prause’s study discounts the existence of sexual problems
when it might have been more accurately described as a study challenging
addiction as a theory to best explain what is happening with
individuals who experience sexually dysregulated behavior.<br />
<br />
There are of course, other relevant points to be made. The first is
whether a brain marker of any kind (e.g. P3, BOLD activation in fMRI
studies, etc…) can or should be consider evidence for the presence or
absence of a disorder. This is a significant assumption in many imaging
studies that is often overlooked, yet, it’s at the heart of how we might
explain and interpret results of science utilizing measures of EEG,
fMRI, DTI, and so forth. Keep in mind however, that this also works both
ways. We have to be careful suggesting that imaging studies “prove”
that hypersexuality or sexual addiction is a legitimate disorder.<br />
<br />
Some critiques and commentaries have emerged on the internet on sites like <i>Psychology</i> <i>Today </i>(e.g.,
<span style="color: red;"> Mr. Gary <span style="background-color: white;">Wilson</span>;</span> Dr. Brian Mustanski). As I’ve looked at some of the
critques, I quite frankly disagree with some of them and think they are
inaccurate. I’ll address a few of these and then go on to make some
points I think we should raise in response to Prause’s study. [Note: <span style="color: red;">Mr.
Wilson's </span>posting on <i>Psychology Today </i>has since been removed]<br />
<br />
<span style="color: red;">Mr. Wilson</span> has attempted to assert that Dr. Prause has failed to
sufficiently analyze an SDI subscale used in her study. <span style="color: red;">Mr. Wilson</span> has
erroneously missed information in her article. The Solitary SDI subscore
was computed, analyzed, and reported alongside the Dyadic Scale as
described in the paper. The paper states “Both are investigated,…” and
“Effects that did not reach statistical significance, defined as p <
0.05, are not discussed.” The Solitary scale was not related to the P3.
The Dyadic subscale is far more commonly used in the literature and
thought to be less subject to reporting bias (“I cannot wait to go home
and masturbate” is not as acceptable as “I cannot wait to find an
attractive person to have hot sex with”.) The data were fully
represented from a widely-used, well-characterized scale. I’m sure Dr.
Prause and her colleagues would share their non-significant finding
values if anyone requested that data, however, nonsignificant values are
often omitted from scientific papers. While they used three different
measures of hypersexual problems, they acknowledge in their paper
“Although several scales were analyzed in this study to increase the
likelihood of identifying a scale that would be related to P300
variance, more scales exist (e.g. Reid, Garos, & Carpenter, 2011)
that might better include the proposed core feature of high sexual
drive.” For example, the Sexual Compulsivity Scale (SCS) might have been
under endorsed by participants who were recruited for “problems
regulating their viewing of sexual images” if they did not also feel out
of control regarding their relational sexual behavior.<br />
<br />
Since the SCS
has items related to relational sexual behavior, such items may not have
been endorsed lowering scores on the SCS and may have possibly
influenced results. This is one of the reasons why my research team
developed the Hypersexual Behavior Inventory (Reid, Garos, &
Carpenter, 2011) to overcome this limitation. Interestingly, Dr. Prause
argues that her method of recruitment “appears to have successfully
recruited participants with scores comparable to those labeled as
‘patients’ with hypersexual problems” citing Winters, Christoff, &
Gorzalka, 2010 as a comparison. However, I’ve also indicated on other
occasions that Winter’s method of classifying hypersexual patients fell
short of what we might use in clinical practice. Moreover, I looked at
the data from our DSM-5 field trial (one of the only studies published
where a diagnostic interview based on the proposed hypersexual disorder
criteria was to classify patients as ‘hypersexual’) and ran the
descriptive statistics for our SCS data. These numbers were not part of
our publication on the DSM-5 field trial (Reid, et al, 2012), but the
SCS data for patients in our study yielded means (<i>Mean </i>= 29.2, <i>SD </i>= 7.7) that would be considered statistically significantly higher than the participants SCS scores in Prause’s study (<i>Mean </i>=
22.31, SD = 6.05). Subsequently, I would raise the issue that Prause’s
sample does not parallel patients we normally see in treatment and she
does appear to also acknowledge this in her paper where she concedes
that samples may have differed from treatment seeking ‘sex addicts’ in
other ways. In fairness to Dr. Prause, the proposed DSM-5 criteria for
hypersexual disorder were not available to her at the time of her data
collection.<br />
<br />
Some have criticized the analysis, again, appearing to misunderstand
statistics tests. In their study, the tests were regressions, not
correlations. Correlations were titled “exploratory” in the article to
investigate possible relationships that might have been missed with the
regressions. These tests assume error in different terms, so are
complementary, but different. For some reason, the main finding in the
regression analysis is never described in any of the critiques by <span style="color: red;">Mr.
Wilson</span> or others. The paper consistently describes these as
“relationships” appropriately so these critiques aren’t particularly
helpful and suggest <span style="color: red;">Mr. Wilson</span> misunderstands these statistical tests.<br />
<br />
Some of the internet critiques mentioned above have also
misrepresented how science works. Ideally, a theory is presented, and
falsifiable predictions are made from that theory. The addiction model
is consistent with an enhanced P3, whereas high sexual desire alone is
not. It is, therefore, important that the results of those constructs
were different. So, yes, the high sexual desire and the addiction models
make different predictions, which allowed an examination of their
separable effects.<br />
<br />
Some have criticized the participants recruited in this study. They
were apparently recruited as described in the study, stratified across
scores on several measures of hypersexuality that have been used (and
instruments such as the Sexually Compulsivity Scale which I have also
used in my own early research in the field). This stratification allows
for appropriate distribution of scores necessary for a valid analysis
and is a common practice in research. The participants were required to
report attraction to the opposite sex. I’m assuming that Dr. Prause did
this to establish that the stimuli presented could be argued as relevant
for all participants in the study.<br />
<br />
One point I might debate with Dr. Prause on this is the degree to
which the standardized sexual stimuli used elicited sufficient sexual
response, and thus in turn, influenced variance in P3 data. For example,
it’s plausible that although sexual arousal was elicited by the sexual
stimuli, we have no way of knowing how it might have differed if more
explicit, more intense, or stimuli that better mapped to personal
preferences were used instead. This issue is discussed at length among
sex researchers and is actually very complex. Certainly a replication
study using personal preferenced sexual stimuli could be conducted to
see if the results remained the same. Prause would likely respond by
stating that the stimuli have been used in hundreds of neuroscience
studies and were extremely tightly controlled. She’d also likely state
that speculations about the necessity of erotica matching specific
preferences seems to rest on the assumption that these would be more
arousing. She’d further argue that is indeed what was represented in the
stimuli: lower and higher intensity sexual stimuli were presented.
Visual sexual stimuli ratings were known, characterized, and have been
published elsewhere already. This being said, she can’t discount the
possibility that specific preference stimuli of a hypersexual population
may have some caveats and it’s a future research question to determine
if this would make a difference. She appears to acknowledge this since
in her paper and interviews with the media she states that the study
does need to be replicated.<br />
<br />
One important issue that Dr. Prause did not report in her study was
whether these patients were assessed for other comorbid psychopathology
(e.g., ADHD), history of head trauma, medications, etc… that might have
impacted P3 scores. I see this is a possible limitation in her findings.
Not screening for such concerns has the advantage of testing a group
that might look more like real patients, who we certainly do not refuse
help on the basis of these, but has the disadvantage of possible
affecting the P300. For example, P300 is affected to positive stimuli in
depression, and we do not have depression diagnoses for her
participants. A few critique’s suggesting some of Prause’s participants
had “no problems” are likely inaccurate. She reported score values (see
Table 2 in the paper). Variation in the level of problems is necessary
for conducting regressions, which make assumptions such as Gaussian
distributions. She also tried to cover her basis using three measures to
capture “hypersexuality.” It is difficult to claim all three have no
utility. Again, I would argue, as noted above that SCS scores fall short
of reflecting a patient population.<br />
<br />
I’ve noticed some people mention Prause had no control group. Not
sure this is a valid concern. She used a “within-subject” design and
while old-school science might make people believe a separate group is
necessary in a regression analysis, using a person as their own control,
as occurs in a within-subject design, is actually is a stronger
statistical approach. Control groups would be more appropriate for a
longitudinal study such as whether pornography consumption is harmful.
So, we can’t fault her for issues with “control group” or argue that
this approach was insufficient to address her research question.
However, it might be argued that the within-subject control that they
use is insufficient to make between-subject designs could answer other
questions.<br />
<br />
Criticisms of the cue-reactivity research protocols are likely not
valid. I suspect they were likely precisely followed. Prause is very
particular in this regard with her research. In substance abuse, eating,
and gambling studies, people are presented with pictures of the objects
they are struggling with and are not able to interact with them.
Similarly, participants in her study were instructed not to masturbate
or advance the images in the present study. There are thousands of
cue-reactivity studies, many using within-subject designs that resemble
the design in her study. It’s an interesting criticism, but without
further research, it’s hard to assess if this would really make a
substantial difference.<br />
<br />
One online critique suggested that the P3 findings presented are
conflicting? Not sure why this was concluded. This isn’t true at all.
For example, researchers have studied P3 among alcoholics to alcohol
cues and to errors on a task. These are entirely different phenomena and
are completely misrepresented in the critique. It’s equivalent to
calling “EEG” a measure of anything and suggests a lack of fundamental
knowledge of EEG and neuroscience. Consider how Prause analyzed her
data. First, the replication of the general P3 to emotional stimuli is
shown. This has been shown thousands of times and is merely noted as
replicated. “Given that this replicated expected, previous findings, the
next planned test was conducted.” Then, the relationship with sexual
desire is examined, which has been studied before by others. Finally,
the relationships with sexual problem measures are examined. As she has
stated in her interviews, there was no relationship between the P3
measure and the measures of sexual problems. The study shows a very nice
result linking P3 to erotic stimulus responses over other stimuli, but
we don’t know whether the relationship between P3 and the behavioral
measures is indirect through other variables not measured in her study
which could potentially offer alternative explanations for her findings.<br />
<br />
One issue I might raise is my discomfort with<span style="color: red;"> Mr. Wilson’s </span>dismissal
of EEG as a technology. EEG is still used in numerous laboratories
across the world, and in some cases concurrently with fMRI. It’s not
that EEG doesn’t have its limitations as noted by others (Polich, 2007),
but they aren’t the ones mentioned by <span style="color: red;">Mr. Wilson </span>in the context of
Prause’s study. A fair criticism might be that EEG is ideal for finding
early, fast differences in brain response, where fMRI is ideal for
finding where slower differences occur. Neither EEG nor fMRI is
inherently a “best” measure. Again, however, as I noted at the beginning
of this critique, it is questionable whether brain markers of any kind
can or should be consider evidence for the presence or absence of a
disorder.<br />
<br />
Dr. Don Hilton, in a SASH ListSrv posting raises questions about the
nuances of P3 but I think his stronger argument lies in how constructs
such as “desire” and “craving” are operationalized and whether such
operationalizations are a good proxy for the latent variable of
interest.<br />
<br />
<b><i>Conclusions</i></b><br />
<br />
So, in summary, I think the salient points are as follows:<br />
<ul>
<li>Prause’s study attempts to ascertain whether a theory of
addiction has explanatory power in predicting hypersexual behavior over
high sexual desire alone. It doesn’t address whether the phenomena of
sexually dysregulated behavior is legitimate, only whether an addiction
model offers a plausible explanation for such behavior.</li>
<li>Prause makes a meaningful contribution to the literature insofar as
she’s starting to tackle questions related to a possible cohesive theory
to characterize dysregulated sexual behavior. The sex addiction field
and even my own work on hypersexual behavior has largely failed to
contribute to a theoretical model of dysregulated sexual behavior. Some
of the limitations of Prause’s study are a direct result of our own
limitations to actually define a testable theory of dysregulated sexual
behavior whether it be an addiction model or some other model.
Interestingly, no one has asked Dr. Prause if she has her own hypothesis
of a model or whether she’s simply going to continue to focus her
efforts on falsifying other models.</li>
<li>Her study assumes that her measures of desire and hypersexuality
capture the latent variable she is studying. Although this is an
assumption inherent in many studies including my own, we must remind
ourselves that it is, nevertheless, an assumption.</li>
<li>EEG is best for finding fast, early differences in brain activity,
whereas other imaging techniques offering more detail about where
differences happen. These other imaging approaches might bolster
arguments for or against an addiction theory. Regardless, replication
studies are necessary to provide further support of Prause’s position,
as from her study “As ever, these results warrant replication with
different participants and protocols more focused on external validity.”</li>
<li>Questions about the sample of the participants in used in the study
have some merit. Prause attempted to recruit patients, but was prevented
from doing so by her local IRB. Any future replication studies should
consider using the methods to classify hypersexual patients as per the
methods in the DSM-5 field trial for hypersexual disorder. Future
studies might also consider investigating concerns about the given study
and specific preference stimuli of a hypersexual population. Future
studies will also need to control for relevant comorbidity,
psychopathology, history of head trauma, and medication effects,
although it is still difficult to know which are more important to
control and the trade-off is external validity.</li>
<li>The media has misconstrued some of Prause’s findings. While she has
some responsible to ensure the accuracy of such reports, many of us can
relate to the media misquoting or erroneously reporting things we’ve
said and should take this into consideration as we read reports about
this study.</li>
</ul>
Note: <span style="color: red;">Mr. Wilson’s</span> page on <i>Psychology Today </i>has been removed. <i>Psychology Today </i>will
remove information from their website pages when it’s considered
erroneous, inappropriate, or in violation of copyright. There were
certainly a substantial amount of errors in Mr. Wilson’s work so perhaps
someone at <i>Psychology Today </i>elected to remove it.<br />
<br />
<b>References</b><br />
Kor, A., Fogel, Y. A., Reid, R. C., & Potenza, M. N. (2013). Should hypersexual disorder be classified as an addiction? <i>Sexual Addiction & Compulsivity, 20</i>(1-2), 27–47.<br />
Polich, J. (2007). Updating P300: An integrative theory of P3a and P3b. <i>Clinical Neurophysiology. 118</i>(10), 2128-2148.<br />
Reid, R. C., Garos, S., & Carpenter, B. N. (2011). Reliability,
validity, and psychometric development of the Hypersexual Behavior
Inventory in an outpatient sample of men. Sexual Addiction &<br />
Compulsivity, 18(1), 30–51. Reid, R. C., Carpenter, B. N., Hook, J.
N., Garos, S., Manning, J. C., Gilliland, R., Cooper, E. B., McKittrick,
H., Davtian, M., & Fong, T. (2012) Report of findings in a DSM-5
Field Trial for<br />
Hypersexual Disorder. <i>Journal of Sexual Medicine, 9</i>(11),
2868-2877. Winters, J., Christoff, K., & Gorzalka, B. B. (2010).
Dysregulated sexuality and high scexual desire: Distinct constructs?
Archives of Sexual Behavior, 39(5), 1029-1043.<br />
<span class="bodytext"><b></b></span></td>
<td width="10"></td>
<td align="right" valign="top" width="162"><br /></td></tr>
</tbody></table>
===============================================<br />
<br />
<br />
<b><span style="font-size: x-large;">Our Response to Rory Reid:</span></b><br />
<div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
</div>
<div>
We're glad to see a response to the questions we raised, even if it
poses as a critique of Prause's work while only critiquing her critics.
As most of the points we raised have been ignored, or spun to have a
different meaning, we'd like Dr. Reid<b> to ask <a href="https://www.yourbrainonporn.com/relevant-research-and-articles-about-the-studies/critiques-of-questionable-debunking-propaganda-pieces/is-nicole-prause-influenced-by-the-porn-industry/" target="_blank">Dr. Prause</a> to answer the following additional questions</b>:<br />
<br />
<b>1)</b> Why did you spin that your findings indicated
hypersexuality was really "high" desire" when your study found greater
brain activation correlated with low sexual desire? Note Prause's
wording <a href="http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/the-sexual-continuum/201307/new-brain-study-questions-existence-sexual-addiction" target="_blank">in this interview</a>:<br />
<blockquote>
<i><b>What is the main finding in your study?</b></i></blockquote>
<blockquote>
<i>"We found that the brain’s response to sexual pictures was not
predicted by any of three different questionnaire measures of
hypersexuality. <b>Brain response was only predicted by <span style="color: red;">a measure of sexual desire</span>.</b> In other words, <b>hypersexuality does not appear to explain brain differences in sexual response <span style="color: red;">any more than just having a high libido.</span></b>"</i></blockquote>
But that didn't happen, as John Johnson PhD explained in <a href="http://tinyurl.com/q54dv6y">this peer-reviewed rebuttal</a>:<br />
<blockquote>
‘<i>The single statistically significant finding says nothing about addiction. Furthermore, this significant finding is a <b>negative correlation between P300 and desire for sex with a partner</b> (r=−0.33), <b>indicating
that P300 amplitude is related to lower sexual desire; this directly
contradicts the interpretation of P300 as high desire</b>. There
are no comparisons to other addict groups. There are no comparisons to
control groups. The conclusions drawn by the researchers are a quantum
leap from the data, which say nothing about whether people who report
trouble regulating their viewing of sexual images have or do not have
brain responses similar to cocaine or any other kinds of addicts</i>’</blockquote>
<b>2)</b> Dr. Prause, why did you mention a "within-subject"
control group when nowhere in your EEG study is there a comparison
between any two groups?<br />
<br />
<b>3) </b>Dr. Prause, why did you make unsupported claims in your Psychology Today interview and elsewhere? The <a href="http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/the-sexual-continuum/201307/new-brain-study-questions-existence-sexual-addiction" target="_blank"><i>Psychology Today</i> interview</a>:<br />
<blockquote>
<i><b>What was the purpose of the study?</b></i></blockquote>
<blockquote>
<i><b>Prause</b>: Our study tested whether people who report
such problems look like other addicts from their brain responses to
sexual images. Studies of drug addictions, such as cocaine, have shown a
consistent pattern of brain response to images of the drug of abuse, so
we predicted that we should see the same pattern in people who report
problems with sex if it was, in fact, an addiction.</i></blockquote>
<blockquote>
<i><b>Does this prove sex addiction is a myth?</b></i></blockquote>
<blockquote>
<i>If our study is replicated, these findings would represent a major
challenge to existing theories of sex “addiction”. The reason these
findings present a challenge<b> is that it shows <span style="color: red;">their brains did not respond to the images like other addicts to their drug of addiction.</span></b></i></blockquote>
The above claims that subjects brains did not "respond like other
addicts is without support. In Steele et al. subjects had higher EEG
(P300) readings when viewing sexual images - which is exactly what
occurs when addicts view images related to their addiction (as in <a href="http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2772167/" target="_blank">this study on cocaine addicts</a>). Commenting under the <a href="http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/the-sexual-continuum/201307/new-brain-study-questions-existence-sexual-addiction" target="_blank"><i>Psychology Today </i>interview </a>of Prause, <a href="http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/the-sexual-continuum/201307/new-brain-study-questions-existence-sexual-addiction/comments#comment-556448" target="_blank">senior psychology professor emeritus John A. Johnson said</a>:<br />
<blockquote>
"<i>My mind still boggles at the Prause claim that her
subjects' brains did not respond to sexual images like drug addicts'
brains respond to their drug, given that she reports higher P300
readings for the sexual images. Just like addicts who show P300 spikes
when presented with their drug of choice. <b>How could she draw a
conclusion that is the opposite of the actual results? </b>I think it could
be due to her preconceptions--what she expected to find</i>."</blockquote>
<b>4)</b> Dr, Prause, what was the correlation between the EEG data and all 14 questions on the <a href="http://www.reuniting.info/download/pdf/sdi-2.pdf" target="_blank">Sexual Desire Inventory </a>(SDI)?
I'll answer: there was no significant correlation. The study duly reports the
solo-sex desire figures, but has this conclusion:<br />
<blockquote>
<i><b>Conclusion</b></i>: Implications for <b>understanding hypersexuality as high desire,</b> rather than disordered, are discussed.</blockquote>
Why is the world would you claim "high desire" when subjects with <b>greater cue-reactivity had</b> <b>lower desire for sex with a partner</b>.
In addition, the phrase "sexual desire" is repeated 63 times in the
study, and the study's title (Sexual Desire, Not Hypersexuality....)
implies that higher brain activation to cues was associated with higher
sexual desire. Moreover, all the headlines shouted that "sex addiction" was really high desire? But it wasn't high desire!<br />
<br />
<b>5)</b> Dr. Reid says, <i>"One issue I might raise is my discomfort with Mr. Wilson's dismissal of EEG as a technology."</i>
Where did we dismiss EEG as a technology? In fact, our reply has links
to 2 studies that used EEGs narrowly and competently in investigating
substance addictions. We merely pointed out that, unlike chemical
addictions, sexual-behavior addictions entail multiple cognitive inputs.
Making broad claims based on EEG activation is reckless because of the
inherent limitations of the technology.<br />
<br />
<b>6)</b> Dr, Prause, where is the evidence that "dyadic
interest alone" is commonly used as a measure of "sexual desire?" You
keep claiming this, but the only support the study offers for this claim
contradicts her claim (<a href="http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16211476" target="_blank">study 1</a>, <a href="http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17943435" target="_blank">study 2</a>. Moreover, so do comments from one of the SDI's developers, <a href="http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8880651" target="_blank"><b>Ilana Spector</b></a>,
whom we contacted in an effort to understand Prause's claims (once we
found the studies cited in it contradicted them). Spector, who assured
us that the SDI is intended to be administered as a single unit, said, <i>"The
scale was only validated using ALL the items both solitary and
dyadic.... The scale was not designed to be used [as it was here] nor
was it validated that way."</i><br />
<br />
<b>7)</b> Dr. Prause, surely you know standard protocol for
an addiction study assessing cue-induced brain activity. Why then were
the subjects <a href="http://www.researchgate.net/publication/260248374_Table_1_Demographics_with_sexual_orientation" target="_blank" title="able 1 Demographics with sexual orientation">men and women, including 7 non-heterosexuals</a>?
Study after study confirms that men and women have significantly
different brain responses to sexual images or films. Valid addiction
brain studies involve homogenous subjects: same sex, same sexual
orientation, along with similar ages and IQ's. This alone discounts your
findings.<br />
<br />
<b>8)</b> Dr. Prause, how can your justify
non-heterosexuals in an experiment with only heterosexual porn - and
then draw vast conclusions from a (predictable) lack of correlation? This also calls your results into question.<br />
<br />
<b>9)</b> Dr. Prause, why were your subjects not
pre-screened? Valid addiction brain studies screen individuals for
pre-existing conditions (depression, OCD, other addictions, etc.). This also calls your results into question.<br />
<br />
<b>10)</b> Dr. Prause, why did you use the SCS (Sexual
Compulsivity Scale) when it isn't a valid assessment test for
Internet-porn addiction or for women? It was created in 1995 and
designed with uncontrolled sexual <i>relations</i> in mind (in
connection with investigating the AIDS epidemic). Again, this alone
explains why there were no correlations between P300 readings and the
SCS.<br />
<br />
Back to the Sexual Desire Inventory (SDI), and Rory Reid's claim that we somehow missed the Solitary SDI scores: "<i>Mr. Wilson has attempted to assert that Dr. <span data-scayt_word="Prause" data-scaytid="1">Prause</span> has failed to sufficiently analyze an SDI <span data-scayt_word="subscale" data-scaytid="2">subscale</span> used in her study</i>". Read what we actually said, starting <a data-cke-saved-href="http://www.yourbrainonporn.com/nothing-correlates-nothing-span-labs-new-porn-study-2013#sdi" href="http://www.yourbrainonporn.com/nothing-correlates-nothing-span-labs-new-porn-study-2013#sdi" target="_blank">here</a>.
We clearly stated that no correlation existed when the entire SDI was
used. This is a fact. While Steele et al reported a negative correlation
between EEG readings and the partnered SDI questions, this finding
manifested itself as a misleading study title and <a data-cke-saved-href="http://www.sexualityprofessionals.com/2013/08/is-sex-addiction-real-new-findings-suggest-some-people-simply-have-high-sex-drives/" href="http://www.sexualityprofessionals.com/2013/08/is-sex-addiction-real-new-findings-suggest-some-people-simply-have-high-sex-drives/">false headlines about "sexual desire</a>". The actual results from the study:<br />
<blockquote>
"Larger <span data-scayt_word="P300" data-scaytid="318">P300</span> amplitude differences to pleasant sexual stimuli, relative to neutral stimuli, was <b>negatively </b>related to measures of sexual desire, but not related to measures of <span data-scayt_word="hypersexuality" data-scaytid="119">hypersexuality</span>."</blockquote>
<b>Translation: </b>Individuals
with greater cue-reactivity to porn had lower desire to have sex with a
partner (but not lower desire to masturbate). To put another way -
individuals with more brain activation and cravings for porn would
rather masturbate to porn than have sex with a real person. Quite
different from the interviews and headlines. <br />
<br />
<ul>
</ul>
<b>Have a look at Table 2 from the<span style="text-indent: -0.25in;"> </span><a href="http://www.socioaffectiveneuroscipsychol.net/index.php/snp/article/view/20770/28995" style="text-indent: -0.25in;" target="_blank" title="Full study">full text of the study</a><span style="text-indent: -0.25in;">.</span></b><br />
<ul>
</ul>
<ol>
</ol>
<br />
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><span style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><a href="http://www.reuniting.info/images/Praus.table.2.JPG" target="_blank"><img border="0" height="147" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgZEckhWpP-nO3SgRUyHAZjc2Ynfj-NLTmYVS6BTVkjWmKh_QfEJpKDUZAgeB-rG9YTMvJY7Y0etreedGI0wdsg2cW5RoWZtPJrI48RjxdsUCAzPdq1rWLiy2s9e3xTIdlEfIwyDC-Guyk/s320/Praus.table.2.JPG" width="320" /></a></span></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;"><a href="http://www.reuniting.info/images/Praus.table.2.JPG" target="_blank">Click to enlarge Table 2</a></td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<div class="MsoListParagraphCxSpLast" style="mso-list: l0 level1 lfo1; text-indent: -.25in;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: .5in;">
First, the "Note" says the
Solitary test score range is "3-26,"
and yet the female mean exceeds it. It's 26.46--literally off the charts. What
happened?</div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: .5in;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: .5in;">
More important, however, if SPAN
Lab had actually measured "sexual desire" using the full SDI, its
researchers would have added the very high overall masturbation-desire mean
score of 23.92 (out of 26) to the partnered-desire mean score of 58 (of a
possible 70). Thus, the true "sexual desire" mean score was a whopping
82 (of a possible 96). </div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: .5in;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: .5in;">
What happens when one compares the actual (14-question) "sexual desire inventory" results with the EEG data? <b><i>There's no significant correlation at all</i></b>. No unrealistic claims about dismantling the concept of "sexual addiction," no <a data-cke-saved-href="http://www.reuniting.info/images/media.blitz.JPG" href="http://www.reuniting.info/images/media.blitz.JPG" target="_blank" title="Some of the media coverage of this "study" ">daring media blitz</a>,
and no need for all the behind-the-scenes intimidation to try to shore
up a flawed finding. In short, Steele et al. findings of little
correlation between EEG readings and questionnaires would have been a
uninteresting null finding (easily explained by other methodological
weaknesses).<br />
<br />
It's important to note that the study contains a second error in regard to the SDI: "<i>The SDI measures levels of sexual desire using<b> two scales</b> composed of <b>seven items each</b>.</i>" In fact, the <a data-cke-saved-href="http://www.reuniting.info/download/pdf/sdi-2.pdf" href="http://www.reuniting.info/download/pdf/sdi-2.pdf" target="_blank">Sexual Desire Inventory</a>
contains <b>nine partnered questions</b>, <b>four solitary question</b>s, and <b>one
question</b> that cannot be categorized (#14). The lively media blitz, which accompanied publication of this study, bases its attention-grabbing headlines on partial SDI results. Yet the study write-up contains glaring errors about the SDI itself, which do not engender confidence in the researchers.<br />
</div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: .5in;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-size: x-large;"><b>Psychology Today and Nicole Prause</b></span><br />
<br />
Yes, our Psychology Today post was taken down. It's our understanding that
it was removed due to groundless legal threats against "Psychology
Today," coming from Dr. Prause herself. In fact, a day later, PT removed an
earlier post of ours...about <a href="http://pornstudyskeptics.blogspot.com/2013/07/study-porn-users-report-narrower.html" target="_blank">another SPAN Lab study</a>. The only posts we have had
removed in 4 years of blogging are posts relating to Prause. Hmm. Science
thrives on open debate, not this kind of behind-the-scenes intimidation. </div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
Dr. Reid (above) twice linked to our former post on "Psychology Today" (which now shows an unpublished page) and suggested that it had been deleted due to "Psychology Today's" belief that it contained errors. Given that we ourselves have received malicious, unfounded legal
threats from Dr. Prause, we very much doubt this.<br />
<br />
Although we hate to make summaries of emails public, in this case, we feel it is necessary so that interested readers may obtain a fuller picture of Dr. Prause's tactics. See the entire exchange of
emails between us and her (below). These occurred months ago, in April, 2013, when she
"leaked" an unpublished, not-yet-reviewed version of this study
(only) to sympathetic blogger David Ley, author of <i>The Myth of Sex Addiction. </i>She later had "Psychology
Today" remove our reply. Incidentally, we then asked "Psychology
Today" editors to remove Ley's post based on the leaked study (which Prause
had refused to make available to others), and "Psychology Today" did remove
it.<b> (Judge for yourself: <a href="http://www.yourbrainonporn.com/unpublished-porn-study-spanlab-finds-porn-arousing-2013" target="_blank">Click here </a>to see David Ley's blog post, our reply blog post, and the comments below our post - including <a href="http://www.yourbrainonporn.com/unpublished-porn-study-spanlab-finds-porn-arousing-2013#nicole" target="_blank">Gary's exchange</a> with Nicole Prause.)</b></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
When the final study came out, Prause enlisted Brian
Mustanski to post a favorable interview, where Prause could "spin"
her results to her liking. We posted a reply to his post, and that's what
Prause had "Psychology Today" remove.</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
Keep in mind that Prause had plenty of opportunity to
comment on our reply blogs about her two studies (both of which can be found on
<a href="http://pornstudyskeptics.blogspot.com/" target="_blank">PornStudySkeptics</a>.
Instead, she has chosen not to take us on directly. Now, she has hidden behind Dr.
Reid's website commentary, where no direct reply from critics is permitted. </div>
</div>
<div>
<b></b><br />
--------------------------------<br />
<ul>
</ul>
<b>UPDATE 1 - <a href="http://www.yourbrainonporn.com/nicole-prauses-pdf-her-span-lab-website">Nicole Prause's long history of libeling and harassing Gary Wilson and many others. </a></b><span style="font-size: 12.0pt; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";"><b> </b></span></div>
<div>
<br />
<span style="font-size: 12.0pt; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";"><b>UPDATE 2</b></span><b> - January, 2015: Nicole Prause is no longer employed by UCLA. </b><br />
<div>
</div>
<div>
<br />
<b><b>UPDATE 3 -</b></b><b> There are now 8 peer-reviewed analyses of <i>Steele et al.</i>, 2013. All align with the following YBOP critique</b>. Paper #1 is solely devoted to <i>Steele et al.</i> Papers 2-8 contain sections analyzing <i>Steele et al., </i>2013:<br />
<ol>
<li><a href="https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3975913/">‘High Desire’, or ‘Merely’ An Addiction? A Response to Steele et al. (2014), by Donald L. Hilton, Jr., MD</a></li>
<li><a href="https://www.yourbrainonporn.com/book/neural-correlates-of-sexual-cue-reactivity-in-individuals-with-and-without-compulsive-sexual-behaviours-2014-excerpt-analyzing-steele-et-al-2013/" title=""Neural Correlates of Sexual Cue Reactivity in Individuals with and without Compulsive Sexual Behaviours" (2014): Excerpt analyzing Steele et al., 2013">Peer-reviewed
analysis: “Neural Correlates of Sexual Cue Reactivity in Individuals
with and without Compulsive Sexual Behaviours” (2014)</a></li>
<li><a href="https://www.yourbrainonporn.com/book/neuroscience-of-internet-pornography-addiction-a-review-and-update-excerpt-critiquing-steele-et-al-2013/" title=""Neuroscience of Internet Pornography Addiction: A Review and Update" - Excerpt critiquing Steele et al., 2013">Peer-reviewed critique: “Neuroscience of Internet Pornography Addiction: A Review and Update” (2015)</a></li>
<li><a href="https://www.yourbrainonporn.com/internet-pornography-causing-sexual-dysfunctions-review-clinical-reports-excerpt-analyzing-steele-et">Peer-reviewed: Is Internet Pornography Causing Sexual Dysfunctions? A Review with Clinical Reports (2016)</a></li>
<li><a href="https://www.yourbrainonporn.com/book/conscious-and-non-conscious-measures-of-emotion-do-they-vary-with-frequency-of-pornography-use-excerpts-analyzing-steele-et-al-2013/" title=""Conscious and Non-Conscious Measures of Emotion: Do They Vary with Frequency of Pornography Use?" - Excerpts analyzing Steele et al., 2013">Peer-reviewed
analysis: “Conscious and Non-Conscious Measures of Emotion: Do They
Vary with Frequency of Pornography Use?” (2017)</a></li>
<li><a href="https://www.yourbrainonporn.com/relevant-research-and-articles-about-the-studies/critiques-of-questionable-debunking-propaganda-pieces/neurocognitive-mechanisms-in-compulsive-sexual-behavior-disorder-2018-excerpts-analyzing-prause-et-al-2015/">Peer-reviewed analysis: Neurocognitive mechanisms in compulsive sexual behavior disorder (2018)</a></li>
<li><a href="https://www.yourbrainonporn.com/relevant-research-and-articles-about-the-studies/critiques-of-questionable-debunking-propaganda-pieces/online-porn-addiction-what-we-know-and-what-we-dont-a-systematic-review-2019-excerpt-analyzing-steele-et-al-2013/">Peer-reviewed critique: “Online Porn Addiction: What We Know and What We Don’t—A Systematic Review” (2019)</a></li>
<li><a href="https://www.yourbrainonporn.com/relevant-research-and-articles-about-the-studies/critiques-of-questionable-debunking-propaganda-pieces/the-initiation-and-development-of-cybersex-addiction-individual-vulnerability-reinforcement-mechanism-and-neural-mechanism-2019-excerpt-analyzing-steele-et-al-2013/">Peer-reviewed
analysis: “The Initiation and Development of Cybersex Addiction:
Individual Vulnerability, Reinforcement Mechanism and Neural Mechanism”
(2019)</a></li>
</ol>
In this 2018 presentation Gary Wilson
exposes the truth behind 5 questionable and misleading studies
(including the two Nicole Prause EEG studies): <a href="https://vimeo.com/272453173">Porn Research: Fact or Fiction?</a></div>
</div>
<div>
</div>
<div>
<br />
<b>UPDATE 4 (2015): Prause appears to profit from denying sex and porn addiction</b><br />
Finally, it should be noted that Nicole Prause now offers her "expert" testimony against "sex addiction". From her <i>Liberos</i><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:DocumentProperties>
<o:Version>12.00</o:Version>
</o:DocumentProperties>
</xml><![endif]--> website (page since removed):<br />
<blockquote>
<i>“Sex
addiction” is increasingly being used as a defense in legal
proceedings, but its scientific status is poor. We have provided expert
testimony to describe the current state of the science and acted as
legal consultants to help teams understand the current state of the
science in this area to successfully represent their client.</i></blockquote>
<blockquote>
<i>Legal consultations and testimony are generally are [sic] billed on an hourly rate.</i></blockquote>
<b> </b></div>
<div>
<b> <b>Update: </b>In this 2018 presentation Gary Wilson exposes the truth behind 5 questionable and misleading studies, including this study (<i>Steele et al.,</i> 2013): <a href="https://vimeo.com/272453173">Porn Research: Fact or Fiction?</a> </b><br />
<b>____________________________</b></div>
<div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<div class="MsoNormal">
<h4>
<b><span style="font-size: 13.5pt; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";"><a href="http://www.yourbrainonporn.com/nicole-prauses-pdf-her-span-lab-website" target="_blank">Nicole Prause begins Her campaign of Harassment</a>: </span></b></h4>
<b>March 5, 2013</b><br />
Author of “The Myth of Sex Addiction,” David Ley, and Nicole Prause team up to write a <i>Psychology Today</i> blog post with the strategic title: "<a href="https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/women-who-stray/201307/your-brain-porn-its-not-addictive" target="_blank" title="Your Brain on Porn - It's NOT Addictive - david Ley">Your Brain on Porn - It's NOT Addictive."</a> (Your Brain On Porn is a <a href="http://yourbrainonporn.com/" target="_blank">website</a> founded by Wilson.) It was about Nicole Prause's unpublished, yet to be peer-reviewed EEG study (<i>"Sexual desire, not hypersexuality, is related to neurophysiological responses elicited by sexual images"</i>).<br />
<br />
It’s important to note that only Ley received access to Prause's
unpublished study (it was published 5 months later). The blog post
linked to Wilson's 'Your Brain on Porn' website and suggested that YBOP
was in favor of banning porn (untrue).<br />
<ul>
<li><b><i>Key point: </i>Five months before Prause’s EEG study (<i>Steele et al</i>., 2013) was published, both Prause and Ley were targeting Gary Wilson and <a href="http://www.yourbrainonporn.com/">his website</a>.</b></li>
</ul>
<b>March 7, 2013</b><br />
Wilson published a <i>Psychology Today</i> blog post responding to the content in the David Ley post. Ley's blog post and Wilson’s response were eventually removed by <i>Psychology Today</i> editors, as the underlying study wasn't yet available. You can find the original Ley and Wilson blog posts archived <a href="http://yourbrainonporn.com/unpublished-porn-study-spanlab-finds-porn-arousing-2013">here</a>. It's important to note that Wilson’s blog post clearly states it was only responding to Ley's <i>description</i>
of the Prause study. Later Nicole Prause would falsely accuse Wilson of
misrepresenting her study (that only she and Ley had seen, and were
making public claims about - which were <a href="http://www.yourbrainonporn.com/nothing-correlates-nothing-span-labs-new-porn-study-2013#claim1" title="Nothing Correlates With Nothing In SPAN Lab's New Porn Study. CLAIM #1">later shown to be unfounded</a>).<br />
<br />
<b>March 7, 2013</b><br />
Wilson posts under David Ley's article requesting the study:<br />
<blockquote>
"<i>Hey David - I'm wondering how you got your hands on a
study that has yet to published, or mentioned anywhere else. Are you
willing to send me a copy</i>?"</blockquote>
David Ley did not respond.<br />
<br />
<b>April 10, 2013</b><br />
In response to the above comment, Prause contacted the <i>Psychology Today</i>
editors and emailed Wilson the following. In the email, Prause attacks
Wilson personally, and mistakenly states that he did not ask for the
study. He had, in fact, asked David Ley for it. <b>The email:</b><br />
<blockquote>
<i>Psychology Today (<a href="mailto:no-reply@psychologytoday.com">no-reply@psychologytoday.com</a>)</i><br />
<i>4/10/13</i><br />
<i>To: <a href="mailto:_______@hotmail.com">_______@hotmail.com</a></i><br />
<i>From: Nicole Prause <nprause@________></i> </blockquote>
<blockquote>
<i>Dear Mr. Wilson,</i><br />
<i>It is illegal for you to misrepresent our science having never even
requested a copy of the manuscript. It will be treated as such. Our
article actually is very balanced. Unlike you, I have peer-reviewed
publications on both sides of this issue. You have attempted to
discredit it by describing things that were not done. I am pursuing this
with Psychology Today now, but I would advise you to remove the post
yourself before I am forced to pursue further action.</i><br />
<i><br /></i>
<i>You also do not have permission to quote any portion of this email. It is private communication.</i><br />
<i><br /></i>
<i>Sell your books on your own merit. Don't try to make money off the backs
of scientists doing their jobs. I can tell this study clearly panics
you because the design and data are strong, but it is egregious to have
not even asked for a copy of the manuscript and just make up content.
Shame on you.</i></blockquote>
<blockquote>
<i>Nicole Prause, PhD</i><br />
<i>Research faculty</i><br />
<i>UCLA</i></blockquote>
In addition, <b>Psychology Today editors forwarded a second email from Prause:</b><br />
<blockquote>
<i>Date: April 10, 2013 5:13:30 PM EDT</i><br />
<i>Topic: Comment on the Blogs</i><br />
<i>From: Nicole Prause, PhD <nprause@_____________</i></blockquote>
<blockquote>
<i>To whom it may concern:</i><br />
<i>I was surprised to see an article written about a study of mine by Gary Wilson on Psychology Today.</i> </blockquote>
<blockquote>
<i>I have no problem with him representing his own views and
interpretations of studies, but he does not and could not have had
access to mine. It is under review and he never requested a copy from
any of the authors. I notified him that it should be removed. He has not
yet done so. Of course, once it is public record, he will have access
to it and be able to represent it (hopefully) more accurately.</i><br />
<i>Of course, knowingly misrepresenting a person to denigrate them is
illegal. I hope Psychology Today will take this matter seriously. I will
contact other board members as well, in case your cue is full and may
take longer to respond.</i><br />
<i>Thank you for your help in resolving this matter.</i><br />
<i>sincerely,</i></blockquote>
<blockquote>
<i>Nicole Prause, PhD</i></blockquote>
<b>The groundless legal threats, false claims, and playing the
victim begin in her very first contact with Wilson. Nothing Prause says
is true:</b><br />
<ol>
<li>Wilson did not describe Prause's study or misrepresent it in any way. He only responded to Ley's <i>description </i>of the study. Read <a href="http://yourbrainonporn.com/unpublished-porn-study-spanlab-finds-porn-arousing-2013">Ley's and Wilson's blog posts </a>and judge for yourself.</li>
<li>To this day Prause has yet to refute a single word in Wilson’s March, 2013 <i>Psychology Today</i> post, or <a href="http://yourbrainonporn.com/sexual-desire-not-hypersexuality-related-neurophysiological-responses-elicited-sexual-images-2013">the analysis Wilson wrote in July</a>
after her EEG study finally was published. Nor has Prause refuted a
single word in four peer-reviewed critiques of her 2013 EEG study (<a href="http://www.socioaffectiveneuroscipsychol.net/index.php/snp/article/view/23833/32589" target="_blank" title="‘High desire’, or ‘merely’ an addiction? A response to Steele et al. by Donald L. Hilton, Jr., MD">1</a>, <a href="http://www.yourbrainonporn.com/neuroscience-internet-pornography-addiction-review-and-update-excerpt-critiquing-steele-et-al-2013" target="_blank" title=""Neuroscience of Internet Pornography Addiction: A Review and Update" - Excerpt critiquing Steele et al., 2013">2</a>, <a href="http://www.yourbrainonporn.com/neural-correlates-sexual-cue-reactivity-individuals-and-without-compulsive-sexual-behaviours-2014-0" target="_blank" title=""Neural Correlates of Sexual Cue Reactivity in Individuals with and without Compulsive Sexual Behaviours" (2014): Excerpt analyzing Steele et al., 2013">3</a>, <a href="http://yourbrainonporn.com/internet-pornography-causing-sexual-dysfunctions-review-clinical-reports-excerpt-analyzing-steele-et" title=""Is Internet Pornography Causing Sexual Dysfunctions? A Review with Clinical Reports" - Excerpt analyzing Steele et al., 2013">4</a>.).</li>
<li>Wilson makes no money off of this endeavor.</li>
<li>Wilson asked for a copy of the study (Prause refused to supply it).</li>
<li>Prause initiated all contact with Wilson.</li>
</ol>
<b>Wilson's email <i>response </i>to Nicole Prause:</b><br />
<!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<w:WordDocument>
<w:View>Normal</w:View>
<w:Zoom>0</w:Zoom>
<w:TrackMoves/>
<w:TrackFormatting/>
<w:PunctuationKerning/>
<w:ValidateAgainstSchemas/>
<w:SaveIfXMLInvalid>false</w:SaveIfXMLInvalid>
<w:IgnoreMixedContent>false</w:IgnoreMixedContent>
<w:AlwaysShowPlaceholderText>false</w:AlwaysShowPlaceholderText>
<w:DoNotPromoteQF/>
<w:LidThemeOther>EN-US</w:LidThemeOther>
<w:LidThemeAsian>X-NONE</w:LidThemeAsian>
<w:LidThemeComplexScript>X-NONE</w:LidThemeComplexScript>
<w:Compatibility>
<w:BreakWrappedTables/>
<w:SnapToGridInCell/>
<w:WrapTextWithPunct/>
<w:UseAsianBreakRules/>
<w:DontGrowAutofit/>
<w:SplitPgBreakAndParaMark/>
<w:DontVertAlignCellWithSp/>
<w:DontBreakConstrainedForcedTables/>
<w:DontVertAlignInTxbx/>
<w:Word11KerningPairs/>
<w:CachedColBalance/>
</w:Compatibility>
<w:BrowserLevel>MicrosoftInternetExplorer4</w:BrowserLevel>
<m:mathPr>
<m:mathFont m:val="Cambria Math"/>
<m:brkBin m:val="before"/>
<m:brkBinSub m:val="--"/>
<m:smallFrac m:val="off"/>
<m:dispDef/>
<m:lMargin m:val="0"/>
<m:rMargin m:val="0"/>
<m:defJc m:val="centerGroup"/>
<m:wrapIndent m:val="1440"/>
<m:intLim m:val="subSup"/>
<m:naryLim m:val="undOvr"/>
</m:mathPr></w:WordDocument>
</xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<w:LatentStyles DefLockedState="false" DefUnhideWhenUsed="true"
DefSemiHidden="true" DefQFormat="false" DefPriority="99"
LatentStyleCount="267">
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="0" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="Normal"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="9" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="heading 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="9" QFormat="true" Name="heading 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="9" QFormat="true" Name="heading 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="9" QFormat="true" Name="heading 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="9" QFormat="true" Name="heading 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="9" QFormat="true" Name="heading 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="9" QFormat="true" Name="heading 7"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="9" QFormat="true" Name="heading 8"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="9" QFormat="true" Name="heading 9"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="39" Name="toc 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="39" Name="toc 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="39" Name="toc 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="39" Name="toc 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="39" Name="toc 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="39" Name="toc 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="39" Name="toc 7"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="39" Name="toc 8"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="39" Name="toc 9"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="35" QFormat="true" Name="caption"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="10" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="Title"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="1" Name="Default Paragraph Font"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="11" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="Subtitle"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="22" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="Strong"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="20" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="Emphasis"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="59" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Table Grid"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Placeholder Text"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="1" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="No Spacing"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="60" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Shading"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="61" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light List"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="62" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Grid"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="63" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="64" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="65" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="66" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="67" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="68" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="69" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="70" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Dark List"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="71" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Shading"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="72" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful List"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="73" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Grid"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="60" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Shading Accent 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="61" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light List Accent 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="62" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Grid Accent 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="63" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 1 Accent 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="64" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 2 Accent 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="65" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 1 Accent 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Revision"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="34" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="List Paragraph"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="29" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="Quote"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="30" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="Intense Quote"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="66" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 2 Accent 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="67" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 1 Accent 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="68" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 2 Accent 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="69" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 3 Accent 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="70" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Dark List Accent 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="71" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Shading Accent 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="72" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful List Accent 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="73" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Grid Accent 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="60" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Shading Accent 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="61" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light List Accent 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="62" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Grid Accent 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="63" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 1 Accent 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="64" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 2 Accent 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="65" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 1 Accent 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="66" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 2 Accent 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="67" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 1 Accent 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="68" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 2 Accent 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="69" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 3 Accent 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="70" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Dark List Accent 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="71" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Shading Accent 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="72" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful List Accent 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="73" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Grid Accent 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="60" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Shading Accent 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="61" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light List Accent 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="62" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Grid Accent 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="63" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 1 Accent 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="64" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 2 Accent 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="65" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 1 Accent 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="66" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 2 Accent 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="67" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 1 Accent 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="68" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 2 Accent 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="69" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 3 Accent 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="70" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Dark List Accent 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="71" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Shading Accent 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="72" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful List Accent 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="73" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Grid Accent 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="60" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Shading Accent 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="61" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light List Accent 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="62" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Grid Accent 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="63" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 1 Accent 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="64" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 2 Accent 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="65" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 1 Accent 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="66" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 2 Accent 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="67" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 1 Accent 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="68" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 2 Accent 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="69" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 3 Accent 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="70" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Dark List Accent 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="71" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Shading Accent 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="72" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful List Accent 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="73" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Grid Accent 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="60" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Shading Accent 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="61" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light List Accent 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="62" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Grid Accent 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="63" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 1 Accent 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="64" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 2 Accent 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="65" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 1 Accent 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="66" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 2 Accent 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="67" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 1 Accent 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="68" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 2 Accent 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="69" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 3 Accent 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="70" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Dark List Accent 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="71" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Shading Accent 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="72" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful List Accent 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="73" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Grid Accent 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="60" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Shading Accent 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="61" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light List Accent 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="62" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Grid Accent 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="63" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 1 Accent 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="64" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 2 Accent 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="65" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 1 Accent 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="66" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 2 Accent 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="67" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 1 Accent 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="68" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 2 Accent 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="69" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 3 Accent 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="70" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Dark List Accent 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="71" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Shading Accent 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="72" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful List Accent 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="73" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Grid Accent 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="19" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="Subtle Emphasis"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="21" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="Intense Emphasis"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="31" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="Subtle Reference"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="32" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="Intense Reference"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="33" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="Book Title"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="37" Name="Bibliography"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="39" QFormat="true" Name="TOC Heading"/>
</w:LatentStyles>
</xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 10]>
<style>
/* Style Definitions */
table.MsoNormalTable
{mso-style-name:"Table Normal";
mso-tstyle-rowband-size:0;
mso-tstyle-colband-size:0;
mso-style-noshow:yes;
mso-style-priority:99;
mso-style-qformat:yes;
mso-style-parent:"";
mso-padding-alt:0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt;
mso-para-margin-top:0in;
mso-para-margin-right:0in;
mso-para-margin-bottom:10.0pt;
mso-para-margin-left:0in;
line-height:115%;
mso-pagination:widow-orphan;
font-size:11.0pt;
font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
mso-ascii-font-family:Calibri;
mso-ascii-theme-font:minor-latin;
mso-hansi-font-family:Calibri;
mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin;
mso-bidi-font-family:"Times New Roman";
mso-bidi-theme-font:minor-bidi;}
</style>
<![endif]--><span style="font-family: inherit;">
</span><br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<i><span style="font-family: inherit;">On Wed, Apr 10, 2013 at 3:14 PM, gary wilson <> wrote:</span></i><br />
<i><span style="font-family: inherit;">
</span></i><br />
<i><span style="font-family: inherit;">Hi Nicole,</span></i><br />
<i><span style="font-family: inherit;">
</span></i><i><span style="font-family: inherit;">I commented under your comment. Have a look.</span></i><br />
<i><span style="font-family: inherit;">
</span></i><i><span style="font-family: inherit;">We make no money on this. My website has no advertising and we accept no
donations. We have no services to sell. I have no book to sell. My wife's book,
which appears on PT, is not about porn.</span></i><br />
<i><span style="font-family: inherit;">
</span></i><i><span style="font-family: inherit;">If you want to be truly fair, please send us the full study and give us
permission to blog about it - as you did with Dr. Ley.</span></i><br />
<i><span style="font-family: inherit;"><span style="font-size: 12pt;">I'll be anticipating </span>your study,
</span></i><br />
<i><span style="font-family: inherit;">Gary Wilson</span></i></blockquote>
<br />
<b>April 12, 2013</b><br />
Two days later Prause contacted Wilson again threatening further legal action. She somehow tracked down <a href="http://www.yourbrainrebalanced.com/index.php?topic=7522.0">one of Wilson's comments on the porn-recovery site Your Brain Rebalanced</a>.
It was posted on a long thread about David Ley's original blog post.
Wilson’s comment was meant to explain why both Ley’s and Wilson’s <i>Psychology Today</i> posts had been removed by <i>Psychology Today</i>.
This signaled Prause’s pattern of cyberstalking, as a not even a Google
search could locate that post. How did Prause know about this thread on
a porn recovery forum?<br />
<br />
<b>The Prause email:</b><br />
<blockquote>
<i>Nicole Prause (nprause@_______)</i><br />
<i>4/12/13 </i></blockquote>
<blockquote>
<i>Dear Mr. Wilson,</i><br />
<i>In your post: <a href="http://yourbrainrebalanced.com/index.php?topic=7522.50" target="_blank">http://yourbrainrebalanced.com/index.php?topic=7522.50</a></i><br />
<i>You falsely claim: "I responded to her rather nasty emails with a request to see her study, and she refused."</i><br />
<i>This is libel. Please remove this post or I will follow up with legal action. </i></blockquote>
<blockquote>
<i>Nicole Prause</i></blockquote>
<b>Wilson responds: </b><br />
<blockquote>
<i>On Fri, Apr 12, 2013 at 11:09 AM, gary wilson <> wrote:</i></blockquote>
<blockquote>
<i>Dear Nicole Prause,</i></blockquote>
<blockquote>
<i>Maybe you didn't know that my wife is a graduate of Yale law school.
I said nothing libelous. In fact, my statements are quite accurate.</i><br />
<i>1) You have refused to hand over your unpublished study.</i><br />
<i>2) You were nasty and threatening, as you are now.</i><br />
<i>3) In addition, you falsely stated that I make money from guys struggling to recover from porn addiction.</i><br />
<i>4) You also mischaracterized my PT post, as it was a clear response
to David Ley's description of your unpublished study. You chose not
correct Ley's description or make the full study available to me, even
when I asked about it in the comment section one month ago.</i><br />
<i>You have yet to answer my original questions (posed in the comments section):</i><br />
<i>1) Why did you release your study to only David Ley? As the author of
the "Myth of Sex Addiction," and someone who claims porn addiction
cannot exist, why was only he the only Chosen One?</i><br />
<i>2) Why haven't you corrected David Ley's interpretation of your
study? It has been up for over a month, and you've commented twice on it
in the last month.</i><br />
<i>3) You commented under Ley's post one month ago. I immediately posted
a comment under you comment, with several specific questions directed
to you about your study.</i> </blockquote>
<blockquote>
<i>That was your chance to both respond and offer
the study. You did neither. Why?</i><br />
<i>I'm fine with making our exchange public. Won't it be interesting
when you file a lawsuit against a couple of PT bloggers who dare to take
on your research?</i> </blockquote>
<blockquote>
<i>Best,</i><br />
<i>Gary Wilson</i></blockquote>
<b>Prause emails again with more crazy claims & legal threats</b>
[Note: Neither Wilson nor his wife ever initiated contact with Prause.
She is the one who repeatedly contacted them and threatened them with
groundless legal action.]<br />
<blockquote>
<i>From: nprause@_________ Date: Fri, 12 Apr 2013 15:01:09 -0700</i><br />
<i>Subject: Re: [PT] Inquiry via Psychology Today</i></blockquote>
<blockquote>
<i>Dear Gary,</i> </blockquote>
<blockquote>
<i>This is to notify both you and your wife that your (both you and your
wife's) contact is unwanted. Per stalking statutes in your home state (<a href="http://courts.oregon.gov/Lane/Restraining.page" target="_blank">http://courts.oregon.gov/Lane/Restraining.page</a>), any additional harassing contact will be interpreted as actionable harassment.</i><br />
<i>You do not have my permission to share this private communication in any forum.</i> </blockquote>
<blockquote>
<i>Nicole Prause</i></blockquote>
<b>Wilson sends his final email to Prause, to set the record
straight: that she is the one initiating all contact and the only person
making threats (and false claims):</b><br />
<blockquote>
<i>From: <a href="mailto:______@hotmail.com">______@hotmail.com</a></i><br />
<i>To: nprause Subject: RE: [PT] Inquiry via Psychology Today</i></blockquote>
<blockquote>
<i>Date: Fri, 12 Apr 2013 15:44:12 -0700</i><br />
<i>Dear Nicole Prause,</i><br />
<i>Harassment? I have not initiated one email exchange with you, including this one.</i><br />
<i>The first, initiated by you on 4/10/13, where you had the last email.
And the one below, where you are trying to create a false impression
that someone is harassing you, when in fact you are threatening me for
the second time. </i></blockquote>
<blockquote>
<i>You are also the one who contacted Psychology Today's editor to
interfere with my blog post. My wife has had no contact with you
whatsover.</i><br />
<i>We do not need your permission. </i></blockquote>
<blockquote>
<i>Gary Wilson</i></blockquote>
The end of the beginning with Nicole Prause.<br />
<b><span style="font-size: 13.5pt; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";"><o:p></o:p></span></b></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-size: 12.0pt; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";">==================================================</span><br />
<h2>
</h2>
<h4 class="MsoNoSpacing">
Much has transpired since July, 2013. </h4>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing">
UCLA did not renew
Nicole Prause’s contract (early 2015). No longer an academic Prause has <a href="https://www.yourbrainonporn.com/book/nicole-prauses-unethical-harassment-and-defamation-of-gary-wilson-others/">engaged
in multiple documented incidents harassment and defamation</a> as part of an
ongoing “astroturf” campaign to persuade people that anyone who disagrees with
her conclusions deserves to be reviled. Prause has accumulated a <a href="https://www.yourbrainonporn.com/nicole-prauses-pdf-her-span-lab-website">long
history</a> of harassing authors, researchers, therapists, reporters and others
who dare to report evidence of harms from internet porn use. She appears to be<a href="https://www.yourbrainonporn.com/relevant-research-and-articles-about-the-studies/critiques-of-questionable-debunking-propaganda-pieces/is-nicole-prause-influenced-by-the-porn-industry/">
quite cozy with the pornography industry</a>, as can be seen from this <a href="https://twitter.com/iafdcom/status/745823086818136064" target="_blank">image
of her (far right) on the red carpet of the X-Rated Critics Organization (XRCO)
awards ceremony</a>. (According to Wikipedia the <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/XRCO_Award">XRCO Awards</a> are given by
the American <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/X-Rated_Critics_Organization">X-Rated
Critics Organization</a> annually to people working in adult entertainment and
it is the only adult industry awards show reserved exclusively for industry
members.<sup><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/XRCO_Award#cite_note-1">[1]</a></sup>).
It also appears that Prause may have <a href="https://twitter.com/JRAxxx/status/959895710039715840">obtained porn
performers as subjects</a> through another porn industry interest group, the <a href="https://www.freespeechcoalition.com/" target="_blank">Free Speech
Coalition.</a> The FSC subjects were allegedly used in her hired-gun study on
the <a href="https://www.bloomberg.com/news/features/2018-06-18/the-dark-side-of-onetaste-the-orgasmic-meditation-company">heavily
tainted</a> and <a href="https://onetaste.us/courses/surrender-retreat/purchase" target="_blank">very commercial “Orgasmic Meditation” scheme</a>. Prause has
also made <a href="https://www.yourbrainonporn.com/relevant-research-and-articles-about-the-studies/critiques-of-questionable-debunking-propaganda-pieces/nicole-prauses-unethical-harassment-and-defamation-of-gary-wilson-others/#research" target="_blank">unsupported claims</a> about <a href="https://www.yourbrainonporn.com/relevant-research-and-articles-about-the-studies/porn-use-sex-addiction-studies/analysis-of-sexual-desire-not-hypersexuality-is-related-to-neurophysiological-responses-elicited-by-sexual-images-steele-et-al-2013/#1">the
results of her studies</a> and her <a href="https://www.yourbrainonporn.com/relevant-research-and-articles-about-the-studies/critiques-of-questionable-debunking-propaganda-pieces/nothing-adds-up-in-dubious-study-youthful-subjects-ed-left-unexplained-by-gabe-deem#prause">study’s
methodologies</a>. For much more documentation, see: <a href="https://www.yourbrainonporn.com/relevant-research-and-articles-about-the-studies/critiques-of-questionable-debunking-propaganda-pieces/is-nicole-prause-influenced-by-the-porn-industry/">Is
Nicole Prause Influenced by the Porn Industry?</a></div>
<!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<w:WordDocument>
<w:View>Normal</w:View>
<w:Zoom>0</w:Zoom>
<w:TrackMoves/>
<w:TrackFormatting/>
<w:PunctuationKerning/>
<w:ValidateAgainstSchemas/>
<w:SaveIfXMLInvalid>false</w:SaveIfXMLInvalid>
<w:IgnoreMixedContent>false</w:IgnoreMixedContent>
<w:AlwaysShowPlaceholderText>false</w:AlwaysShowPlaceholderText>
<w:DoNotPromoteQF/>
<w:LidThemeOther>EN-US</w:LidThemeOther>
<w:LidThemeAsian>X-NONE</w:LidThemeAsian>
<w:LidThemeComplexScript>X-NONE</w:LidThemeComplexScript>
<w:Compatibility>
<w:BreakWrappedTables/>
<w:SnapToGridInCell/>
<w:WrapTextWithPunct/>
<w:UseAsianBreakRules/>
<w:DontGrowAutofit/>
<w:SplitPgBreakAndParaMark/>
<w:DontVertAlignCellWithSp/>
<w:DontBreakConstrainedForcedTables/>
<w:DontVertAlignInTxbx/>
<w:Word11KerningPairs/>
<w:CachedColBalance/>
</w:Compatibility>
<w:BrowserLevel>MicrosoftInternetExplorer4</w:BrowserLevel>
<m:mathPr>
<m:mathFont m:val="Cambria Math"/>
<m:brkBin m:val="before"/>
<m:brkBinSub m:val="--"/>
<m:smallFrac m:val="off"/>
<m:dispDef/>
<m:lMargin m:val="0"/>
<m:rMargin m:val="0"/>
<m:defJc m:val="centerGroup"/>
<m:wrapIndent m:val="1440"/>
<m:intLim m:val="subSup"/>
<m:naryLim m:val="undOvr"/>
</m:mathPr></w:WordDocument>
</xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<w:LatentStyles DefLockedState="false" DefUnhideWhenUsed="true"
DefSemiHidden="true" DefQFormat="false" DefPriority="99"
LatentStyleCount="267">
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="0" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="Normal"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="9" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="heading 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="9" QFormat="true" Name="heading 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="9" QFormat="true" Name="heading 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="9" QFormat="true" Name="heading 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="9" QFormat="true" Name="heading 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="9" QFormat="true" Name="heading 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="9" QFormat="true" Name="heading 7"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="9" QFormat="true" Name="heading 8"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="9" QFormat="true" Name="heading 9"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="39" Name="toc 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="39" Name="toc 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="39" Name="toc 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="39" Name="toc 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="39" Name="toc 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="39" Name="toc 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="39" Name="toc 7"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="39" Name="toc 8"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="39" Name="toc 9"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="35" QFormat="true" Name="caption"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="10" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="Title"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="1" Name="Default Paragraph Font"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="11" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="Subtitle"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="22" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="Strong"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="20" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="Emphasis"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="59" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Table Grid"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Placeholder Text"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="1" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="No Spacing"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="60" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Shading"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="61" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light List"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="62" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Grid"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="63" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="64" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="65" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="66" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="67" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="68" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="69" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="70" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Dark List"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="71" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Shading"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="72" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful List"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="73" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Grid"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="60" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Shading Accent 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="61" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light List Accent 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="62" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Grid Accent 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="63" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 1 Accent 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="64" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 2 Accent 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="65" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 1 Accent 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Revision"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="34" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="List Paragraph"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="29" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="Quote"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="30" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="Intense Quote"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="66" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 2 Accent 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="67" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 1 Accent 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="68" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 2 Accent 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="69" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 3 Accent 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="70" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Dark List Accent 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="71" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Shading Accent 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="72" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful List Accent 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="73" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Grid Accent 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="60" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Shading Accent 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="61" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light List Accent 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="62" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Grid Accent 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="63" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 1 Accent 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="64" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 2 Accent 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="65" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 1 Accent 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="66" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 2 Accent 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="67" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 1 Accent 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="68" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 2 Accent 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="69" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 3 Accent 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="70" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Dark List Accent 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="71" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Shading Accent 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="72" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful List Accent 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="73" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Grid Accent 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="60" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Shading Accent 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="61" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light List Accent 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="62" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Grid Accent 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="63" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 1 Accent 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="64" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 2 Accent 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="65" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 1 Accent 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="66" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 2 Accent 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="67" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 1 Accent 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="68" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 2 Accent 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="69" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 3 Accent 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="70" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Dark List Accent 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="71" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Shading Accent 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="72" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful List Accent 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="73" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Grid Accent 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="60" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Shading Accent 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="61" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light List Accent 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="62" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Grid Accent 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="63" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 1 Accent 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="64" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 2 Accent 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="65" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 1 Accent 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="66" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 2 Accent 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="67" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 1 Accent 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="68" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 2 Accent 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="69" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 3 Accent 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="70" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Dark List Accent 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="71" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Shading Accent 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="72" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful List Accent 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="73" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Grid Accent 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="60" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Shading Accent 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="61" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light List Accent 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="62" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Grid Accent 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="63" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 1 Accent 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="64" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 2 Accent 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="65" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 1 Accent 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="66" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 2 Accent 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="67" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 1 Accent 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="68" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 2 Accent 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="69" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 3 Accent 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="70" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Dark List Accent 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="71" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Shading Accent 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="72" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful List Accent 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="73" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Grid Accent 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="60" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Shading Accent 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="61" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light List Accent 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="62" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Grid Accent 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="63" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 1 Accent 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="64" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 2 Accent 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="65" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 1 Accent 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="66" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 2 Accent 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="67" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 1 Accent 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="68" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 2 Accent 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="69" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 3 Accent 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="70" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Dark List Accent 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="71" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Shading Accent 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="72" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful List Accent 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="73" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Grid Accent 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="19" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="Subtle Emphasis"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="21" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="Intense Emphasis"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="31" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="Subtle Reference"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="32" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="Intense Reference"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="33" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="Book Title"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="37" Name="Bibliography"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="39" QFormat="true" Name="TOC Heading"/>
</w:LatentStyles>
</xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 10]>
<style>
/* Style Definitions */
table.MsoNormalTable
{mso-style-name:"Table Normal";
mso-tstyle-rowband-size:0;
mso-tstyle-colband-size:0;
mso-style-noshow:yes;
mso-style-priority:99;
mso-style-qformat:yes;
mso-style-parent:"";
mso-padding-alt:0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt;
mso-para-margin-top:0in;
mso-para-margin-right:0in;
mso-para-margin-bottom:10.0pt;
mso-para-margin-left:0in;
line-height:115%;
mso-pagination:widow-orphan;
font-size:11.0pt;
font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
mso-ascii-font-family:Calibri;
mso-ascii-theme-font:minor-latin;
mso-hansi-font-family:Calibri;
mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin;
mso-bidi-font-family:"Times New Roman";
mso-bidi-theme-font:minor-bidi;}
</style>
<![endif]--><br />
<h4>
</h4>
<span style="font-size: 12.0pt; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";"><o:p></o:p></span></div>
</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
</div>
Concerned Observershttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17481437202179154037noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6124915000554403951.post-87486720325369168752013-07-19T15:05:00.002-07:002019-08-30T20:46:37.045-07:00SPAN Lab Touts Empty Porn Study As Ground-Breaking: Critique of Steele et al., 2013<div class="MsoNormal">
<h3>
Actual findings support porn addiction model; Prause misrepresents the study's findings in interviews</h3>
<br />
<i>[This was first published in July 2013 as a reply blog post to<span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span><a href="http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/the-sexual-continuum/201307/new-brain-study-questions-existence-sexual-addiction" style="text-decoration: none;" target="_blank">a "Psychology Today" blog post</a> that featured an interview with Dr. Nicole Prause, co-author of the study discussed here.]</i></div>
<br />
The SPAN Lab study: "<a href="http://www.socioaffectiveneuroscipsychol.net/index.php/snp/article/view/20770" target="_blank">Sexual Desire, not Hypersexuality, is Related to Neurophysiological Responses Elicited by Sexual Images</a>" (<b><i>Steele et al., </i>2013</b>)<br />
<br />
This EEG study was touted <a href="https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/women-who-stray/201307/your-brain-porn-its-not-addictive" rel="noopener" target="_blank" title="Your Brain on Porn - It's NOT Addictive">in the media</a> as evidence against the existence of porn/sex addiction. <a href="https://www.psychologytoday.com/comment/542939#comment-542939" rel="noopener" target="_blank">Not so</a>. <i>Steele et al</i>. 2013 actually lends support to the existence of both porn addiction and porn use down-regulating sexual desire. How so? <a href="https://www.yourbrainonporn.com/sexual-desire-not-hypersexuality-related-neurophysiological-responses-elicited-sexual-images-2013#1">The study reported higher EEG readings</a>
(relative to neutral pictures) when subjects were briefly exposed to
pornographic photos. Studies consistently show that an elevated P300
occurs when addicts are exposed to cues (such as images) related to
their addiction.<br />
<br />
In line with the <a href="https://www.yourbrainonporn.com/cambridge-university-brain-scans-find-porn-addiction" title="Neural Correlates of Sexual Cue Reactivity in Individuals with and without Compulsive Sexual Behaviours (2014) ">Cambridge University brain scan studies</a>, this EEG study <i>also</i> reported greater cue-reactivity to porn correlating with <span style="text-decoration: underline;">less</span>
desire for partnered sex. To put it another way – individuals with
greater brain activation to porn would rather masturbate to porn than
have sex with a real person. Shockingly, study spokesperson <a href="https://www.yourbrainonporn.com/book/nicole-prauses-unethical-harassment-and-defamation-of-gary-wilson-others/" title="Nicole Prause's Unethical Harassment and Defamation of Gary Wilson & Others">Nicole Prause</a> claimed that porn users merely had “high libido,” yet the results of the study say <a href="https://www.yourbrainonporn.com/sexual-desire-not-hypersexuality-related-neurophysiological-responses-elicited-sexual-images-2013#2" rel="noopener" target="_blank">the exact opposite</a> (subjects’ desire for partnered sex was dropping in relation to their porn use).<br />
<br />
It's clear that few bothered to read the study, and most everyone
buys the false headlines and claims.
Below, we dismantle the unfounded claims and reveal what the study
actually found, <i>and </i>why it should never have been published. I
suggest the short version, which addresses the three main claims
promulgated in the media.<br />
<br />
<b>There are now 8 peer-reviewed analyses of <i>Steele et al.</i>, 2013. All align with the following YBOP critique</b>. Paper #1 is solely devoted to <i>Steele et al.</i> Papers 2-8 contain sections analyzing <i>Steele et al., </i>2013:<br />
<ol>
<li><a href="https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3975913/">‘High Desire’, or ‘Merely’ An Addiction? A Response to Steele et al. (2014), by Donald L. Hilton, Jr., MD</a></li>
<li><a href="https://www.yourbrainonporn.com/book/neural-correlates-of-sexual-cue-reactivity-in-individuals-with-and-without-compulsive-sexual-behaviours-2014-excerpt-analyzing-steele-et-al-2013/" title=""Neural Correlates of Sexual Cue Reactivity in Individuals with and without Compulsive Sexual Behaviours" (2014): Excerpt analyzing Steele et al., 2013">Peer-reviewed
analysis: “Neural Correlates of Sexual Cue Reactivity in Individuals
with and without Compulsive Sexual Behaviours” (2014)</a></li>
<li><a href="https://www.yourbrainonporn.com/book/neuroscience-of-internet-pornography-addiction-a-review-and-update-excerpt-critiquing-steele-et-al-2013/" title=""Neuroscience of Internet Pornography Addiction: A Review and Update" - Excerpt critiquing Steele et al., 2013">Peer-reviewed critique: “Neuroscience of Internet Pornography Addiction: A Review and Update” (2015)</a></li>
<li><a href="https://www.yourbrainonporn.com/internet-pornography-causing-sexual-dysfunctions-review-clinical-reports-excerpt-analyzing-steele-et">Peer-reviewed: Is Internet Pornography Causing Sexual Dysfunctions? A Review with Clinical Reports (2016)</a></li>
<li><a href="https://www.yourbrainonporn.com/book/conscious-and-non-conscious-measures-of-emotion-do-they-vary-with-frequency-of-pornography-use-excerpts-analyzing-steele-et-al-2013/" title=""Conscious and Non-Conscious Measures of Emotion: Do They Vary with Frequency of Pornography Use?" - Excerpts analyzing Steele et al., 2013">Peer-reviewed
analysis: “Conscious and Non-Conscious Measures of Emotion: Do They
Vary with Frequency of Pornography Use?” (2017)</a></li>
<li><a href="https://www.yourbrainonporn.com/relevant-research-and-articles-about-the-studies/critiques-of-questionable-debunking-propaganda-pieces/neurocognitive-mechanisms-in-compulsive-sexual-behavior-disorder-2018-excerpts-analyzing-prause-et-al-2015/">Peer-reviewed analysis: Neurocognitive mechanisms in compulsive sexual behavior disorder (2018)</a></li>
<li><a href="https://www.yourbrainonporn.com/relevant-research-and-articles-about-the-studies/critiques-of-questionable-debunking-propaganda-pieces/online-porn-addiction-what-we-know-and-what-we-dont-a-systematic-review-2019-excerpt-analyzing-steele-et-al-2013/">Peer-reviewed critique: “Online Porn Addiction: What We Know and What We Don’t—A Systematic Review” (2019)</a></li>
<li><a href="https://www.yourbrainonporn.com/relevant-research-and-articles-about-the-studies/critiques-of-questionable-debunking-propaganda-pieces/the-initiation-and-development-of-cybersex-addiction-individual-vulnerability-reinforcement-mechanism-and-neural-mechanism-2019-excerpt-analyzing-steele-et-al-2013/">Peer-reviewed
analysis: “The Initiation and Development of Cybersex Addiction:
Individual Vulnerability, Reinforcement Mechanism and Neural Mechanism”
(2019)</a></li>
</ol>
<br />
<b> Update 2:</b> In this 2018 presentation Gary Wilson
exposes the truth behind 5 questionable and misleading studies
(including the two Nicole Prause EEG studies): <a href="https://vimeo.com/272453173">Porn Research: Fact or Fiction?</a><br />
<hr />
<h2>
</h2>
<h2>
THE SHORT VERSION</h2>
SPAN lab presents the following arguments to support their claim that "porn addiction does not exist":<br />
<ol>
<li>In <a href="http://losangeles.cbslocal.com/2013/07/18/ucla-study-suggests-sexual-addiction-isnt-a-real-disorder/" target="_blank">TV interviews</a> and in the <a href="http://newsroom.ucla.edu/releases/is-sexual-addiction-the-real-deal-247423" target="_blank">UCLA press release</a> researcher Nicole Prause claims that subjects' brains did not respond like other addicts.</li>
<li>The headlines and the study's conclusion suggest that "hypersexuality" is understood as "<b>high desire</b>", yet the study reports that subjects with greater brain activation to porn have <b>less desire</b> for sex. </li>
<li>Steele et al. argues that the<i> lack of correlations</i> between EEG readings and certain questionnaires means porn addiction doesn't exist.</li>
</ol>
You can read the whole analysis, but here's the scoop on 1, 2 and 3 above.<br />
<h3>
<b> </b></h3>
<h3>
<b>CLAIM NUMBER 1: </b>Subjects' brain response differs from other types of addicts (cocaine was the example).</h3>
Much of the hype and headlines surrounding this study rest upon this unsupported claim. Here's the hype:<br />
<br />
<a href="http://newsroom.ucla.edu/releases/is-sexual-addiction-the-real-deal-247423" target="_blank"><b>Press release</b>:</a><br />
<blockquote>
"If they indeed suffer from hypersexuality, or sexual
addiction, their brain response to visual sexual stimuli could be
expected be higher, in much the same way that the brains of cocaine
addicts have been shown to react to images of the drug in other
studies."</blockquote>
<a href="http://losangeles.cbslocal.com/2013/07/18/ucla-study-suggests-sexual-addiction-isnt-a-real-disorder/" target="_blank"><b>TV interview:</b></a><br />
<blockquote>
<div>
<b>Reporter:</b> "They were shown various erotic images, and their brain activity monitored."</div>
<div>
</div>
<div>
<b></b></div>
</blockquote>
<blockquote>
<div>
<b>Prause</b>: "If you think sexual problems are an
addiction, we would have expected to see an enhanced response, maybe, to
those sexual images. If you think it's a problem of impulsivity, we
would have expected to see decreased responses to those sexual images.
And the fact that we didn't see any of those relationships suggests that
there's not great support for looking at these problem sexual behaviors
as an addiction."</div>
</blockquote>
<div>
<b><a href="http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/the-sexual-continuum/201307/new-brain-study-questions-existence-sexual-addiction" target="_blank"><i>Psychology Today</i> interview</a>:</b><br />
<blockquote>
<b>What was the purpose of the study?</b><br />
<b></b></blockquote>
<blockquote>
<b>Prause</b>: Our study tested whether people who report
such problems look like other addicts from their brain responses to
sexual images. Studies of drug addictions, such as cocaine, have shown a
consistent pattern of brain response to images of the drug of abuse, so
we predicted that we should see the same pattern in people who report
problems with sex if it was, in fact, an addiction.<br />
<b></b></blockquote>
<blockquote>
<b>Does this prove sex addiction is a myth?</b></blockquote>
<blockquote>
<b>Prause</b>: If our study is replicated, these findings would represent a major
challenge to existing theories of sex “addiction”. The reason these
findings present a challenge is that it shows their brains did not
respond to the images like other addicts to their drug of addiction.</blockquote>
</div>
The above claims that subjects brains did not "respond like other addicts is without support. In this study, subjects had higher EEG (P300)
readings when viewing sexual images - which is exactly what occurs when
addicts view images related to their addiction (as in <a href="http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2772167/" target="_blank">this study on cocaine addicts</a>). Commenting under the <a href="http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/the-sexual-continuum/201307/new-brain-study-questions-existence-sexual-addiction" target="_blank"><i>Psychology Today </i>interview </a>of Prause, <a href="http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/the-sexual-continuum/201307/new-brain-study-questions-existence-sexual-addiction/comments#comment-556448" target="_blank">senior psychology professor emeritus John A. Johnson said</a>:<br />
<blockquote>
"My mind still boggles at the Prause claim that her
subjects' brains did not respond to sexual images like drug addicts'
brains respond to their drug, given that she reports higher P300
readings for the sexual images. Just like addicts who show P300 spikes
when presented with their drug of choice. <b>How could she draw a
conclusion that is the opposite of the actual results?</b> I think it could
be due to her preconceptions--what she expected to find."</blockquote>
<a href="http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/the-sexual-continuum/201307/new-brain-study-questions-existence-sexual-addiction/comments#comment-542939">John Johnson continues</a>:<br />
<blockquote>
Mustanski asks, "What was the purpose of the study?" And
Prause replies, "Our study tested whether people who report such
problems [problems with regulating their viewing of online erotica] look
like other addicts from their brain responses to sexual images."<br />
<b>But the study did not compare brain recordings from persons having
problems regulating their viewing of online erotica to brain recordings
from drug addicts and brain recordings from a non-addict control group,
which would have been the obvious way to see if brain responses from the
troubled group look more like the brain responses of addicts or
non-addicts.</b></blockquote>
<blockquote>
Instead, Prause claims that their within-subject design was a better
method, where research subjects serve as their own control group. With
this design, they found that the EEG response of their subjects (as a
group) to erotic pictures was stronger than their EEG responses to other
kinds of pictures. This is shown in the inline waveform graph (although
for some reason the graph differs considerably from the actual graph in
the published article).</blockquote>
<blockquote>
<b>So this group who reports having trouble regulating their
viewing of online erotica has a stronger EEG response to erotic
pictures than other kinds of pictures.</b> Do addicts show a similarly
strong EEG response when presented with their drug of choice? We don't
know. Do normal, non-addicts show a response as strong as the troubled
group to erotica? Again, we do not know. <b>We don't know whether this EEG
pattern is more similar to the brain patterns of addicts or non-addicts.</b></blockquote>
<blockquote>
The Prause research team claims to be able to demonstrate whether the
elevated EEG response of their subjects to erotica is an addictive
brain response or just a high-libido brain response by correlating a set
of questionnaire scores with individual differences in EEG response.
But explaining differences in EEG response is a different question from
exploring whether the overall group's response looks addictive or not.</blockquote>
<b>Simple:</b> The claims that the subjects' brains differed from other types of addicts is without support. In fact, the 2014 <a href="http://tinyurl.com/m5fono5" target="_blank">Cambridge University study</a> (Voon et al.) analyzed Steele et al and agreed with Johnson: Steele et al.
reported higher P300 in response to sexual images relative to neutral pictures (<b>citation 25</b>). From the Cambridge study:<br />
<blockquote>
"Our findings suggest dACC activity reflects the role of
sexual desire, which may have similarities to a study on the P300 in CSB
subjects correlating with desire <b>[25]</b> ......Studies of
the P300, an event related potential used to study attentional bias in
substance use disorders, show elevated measures with respect to use of
nicotine [54], alcohol [55], and opiates [56], with measures often
correlating with craving indices.".....Thus, both dACC activity in the
present CSB study and P300 activity reported in a previous CSB study may
reflect similar underlying processes."</blockquote>
<!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<w:WordDocument>
<w:View>Normal</w:View>
<w:Zoom>0</w:Zoom>
<w:TrackMoves/>
<w:TrackFormatting/>
<w:PunctuationKerning/>
<w:ValidateAgainstSchemas/>
<w:SaveIfXMLInvalid>false</w:SaveIfXMLInvalid>
<w:IgnoreMixedContent>false</w:IgnoreMixedContent>
<w:AlwaysShowPlaceholderText>false</w:AlwaysShowPlaceholderText>
<w:DoNotPromoteQF/>
<w:LidThemeOther>EN-US</w:LidThemeOther>
<w:LidThemeAsian>X-NONE</w:LidThemeAsian>
<w:LidThemeComplexScript>X-NONE</w:LidThemeComplexScript>
<w:Compatibility>
<w:BreakWrappedTables/>
<w:SnapToGridInCell/>
<w:WrapTextWithPunct/>
<w:UseAsianBreakRules/>
<w:DontGrowAutofit/>
<w:SplitPgBreakAndParaMark/>
<w:DontVertAlignCellWithSp/>
<w:DontBreakConstrainedForcedTables/>
<w:DontVertAlignInTxbx/>
<w:Word11KerningPairs/>
<w:CachedColBalance/>
</w:Compatibility>
<m:mathPr>
<m:mathFont m:val="Cambria Math"/>
<m:brkBin m:val="before"/>
<m:brkBinSub m:val="--"/>
<m:smallFrac m:val="off"/>
<m:dispDef/>
<m:lMargin m:val="0"/>
<m:rMargin m:val="0"/>
<m:defJc m:val="centerGroup"/>
<m:wrapIndent m:val="1440"/>
<m:intLim m:val="subSup"/>
<m:naryLim m:val="undOvr"/>
</m:mathPr></w:WordDocument>
</xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<w:LatentStyles DefLockedState="false" DefUnhideWhenUsed="true"
DefSemiHidden="true" DefQFormat="false" DefPriority="99"
LatentStyleCount="267">
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="0" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="Normal"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="9" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="heading 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="9" QFormat="true" Name="heading 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="9" QFormat="true" Name="heading 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="9" QFormat="true" Name="heading 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="9" QFormat="true" Name="heading 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="9" QFormat="true" Name="heading 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="9" QFormat="true" Name="heading 7"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="9" QFormat="true" Name="heading 8"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="9" QFormat="true" Name="heading 9"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="39" Name="toc 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="39" Name="toc 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="39" Name="toc 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="39" Name="toc 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="39" Name="toc 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="39" Name="toc 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="39" Name="toc 7"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="39" Name="toc 8"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="39" Name="toc 9"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="35" QFormat="true" Name="caption"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="10" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="Title"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="1" Name="Default Paragraph Font"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="11" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="Subtitle"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="22" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="Strong"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="20" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="Emphasis"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="59" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Table Grid"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Placeholder Text"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="1" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="No Spacing"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="60" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Shading"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="61" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light List"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="62" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Grid"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="63" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="64" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="65" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="66" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="67" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="68" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="69" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="70" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Dark List"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="71" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Shading"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="72" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful List"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="73" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Grid"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="60" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Shading Accent 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="61" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light List Accent 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="62" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Grid Accent 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="63" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 1 Accent 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="64" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 2 Accent 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="65" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 1 Accent 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Revision"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="34" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="List Paragraph"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="29" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="Quote"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="30" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="Intense Quote"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="66" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 2 Accent 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="67" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 1 Accent 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="68" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 2 Accent 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="69" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 3 Accent 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="70" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Dark List Accent 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="71" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Shading Accent 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="72" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful List Accent 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="73" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Grid Accent 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="60" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Shading Accent 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="61" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light List Accent 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="62" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Grid Accent 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="63" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 1 Accent 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="64" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 2 Accent 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="65" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 1 Accent 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="66" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 2 Accent 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="67" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 1 Accent 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="68" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 2 Accent 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="69" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 3 Accent 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="70" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Dark List Accent 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="71" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Shading Accent 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="72" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful List Accent 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="73" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Grid Accent 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="60" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Shading Accent 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="61" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light List Accent 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="62" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Grid Accent 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="63" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 1 Accent 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="64" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 2 Accent 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="65" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 1 Accent 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="66" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 2 Accent 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="67" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 1 Accent 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="68" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 2 Accent 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="69" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 3 Accent 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="70" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Dark List Accent 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="71" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Shading Accent 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="72" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful List Accent 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="73" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Grid Accent 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="60" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Shading Accent 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="61" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light List Accent 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="62" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Grid Accent 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="63" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 1 Accent 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="64" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 2 Accent 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="65" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 1 Accent 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="66" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 2 Accent 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="67" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 1 Accent 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="68" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 2 Accent 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="69" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 3 Accent 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="70" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Dark List Accent 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="71" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Shading Accent 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="72" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful List Accent 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="73" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Grid Accent 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="60" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Shading Accent 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="61" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light List Accent 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="62" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Grid Accent 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="63" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 1 Accent 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="64" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 2 Accent 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="65" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 1 Accent 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="66" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 2 Accent 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="67" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 1 Accent 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="68" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 2 Accent 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="69" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 3 Accent 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="70" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Dark List Accent 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="71" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Shading Accent 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="72" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful List Accent 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="73" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Grid Accent 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="60" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Shading Accent 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="61" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light List Accent 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="62" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Grid Accent 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="63" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 1 Accent 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="64" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 2 Accent 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="65" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 1 Accent 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="66" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 2 Accent 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="67" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 1 Accent 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="68" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 2 Accent 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="69" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 3 Accent 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="70" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Dark List Accent 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="71" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Shading Accent 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="72" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful List Accent 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="73" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Grid Accent 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="19" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="Subtle Emphasis"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="21" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="Intense Emphasis"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="31" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="Subtle Reference"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="32" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="Intense Reference"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="33" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="Book Title"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="37" Name="Bibliography"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="39" QFormat="true" Name="TOC Heading"/>
</w:LatentStyles>
</xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 10]>
<style>
/* Style Definitions */
table.MsoNormalTable
{mso-style-name:"Table Normal";
mso-tstyle-rowband-size:0;
mso-tstyle-colband-size:0;
mso-style-noshow:yes;
mso-style-priority:99;
mso-style-qformat:yes;
mso-style-parent:"";
mso-padding-alt:0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt;
mso-para-margin-top:0in;
mso-para-margin-right:0in;
mso-para-margin-bottom:10.0pt;
mso-para-margin-left:0in;
line-height:115%;
mso-pagination:widow-orphan;
font-size:11.0pt;
font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
mso-ascii-font-family:Calibri;
mso-ascii-theme-font:minor-latin;
mso-hansi-font-family:Calibri;
mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin;}
</style>
<![endif]--><span style="font-weight: normal;"><span style="font-family: "arial" , "sans-serif"; font-size: 12.0pt;">This <a href="http://www.mdpi.com/2076-328X/5/3/388/htm" target="_blank">2015 review the neuroscience literature</a> summarized Steele et al: </span></span><br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<span style="font-weight: normal;"><span style="font-family: "arial" , "sans-serif"; font-size: 12.0pt;">"So
while these authors [</span><span style="font-family: "arial" , "sans-serif"; font-size: 12.0pt;"><a href="http://www.mdpi.com/2076-328X/5/3/388/htm#B303-behavsci-05-00388"><span style="mso-bidi-font-family: Arial;">303</span></a></span><span style="font-family: "arial" , "sans-serif"; font-size: 12.0pt;">] claimed that their study refuted the
application of the addiction model to CSB, Voon <span class="html-italic">et al</span>.
posited that these authors actually provided evidence supporting said model."</span></span></blockquote>
<br />
<h3>
<b>CLAIM NUMBER 2: </b>The headlines & conclusion suggest that "hypersexuality" is understood as "<b>high desire</b>", yet the study reports that subjects with greater brain activation to porn have <b>less desire</b> for sex. </h3>
What you didn't read in interviews and articles is that:<br />
<ol>
<li>No
significant correlation existed when all 14 questions in Sexual Desire
Inventory (SDI) were calculated. To put it another way, when the
masturbation questions were included in the calculations, no correlation
was found.</li>
<li>The study reported a <b><i>negative correlation</i></b>
between "partnered sexual desire questions" and P300 readings. In other
words, greater brain activation correlated with less desire for sex
(but not less desire to masturbate). </li>
</ol>
Note Prause's wording <a data-cke-saved-href="http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/the-sexual-continuum/201307/new-brain-study-questions-existence-sexual-addiction" href="http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/the-sexual-continuum/201307/new-brain-study-questions-existence-sexual-addiction" target="_blank">in this interview</a>: <br />
<blockquote>
<b>What is the main finding in your study?</b></blockquote>
<blockquote>
"We found that the brain’s response to sexual pictures was not
predicted by any of three different questionnaire measures of
hypersexuality. <b>Brain response was only predicted by a measure of sexual desire.</b>
In other words, hypersexuality does not appear to explain brain
differences in sexual response any more than just having a high libido."</blockquote>
Note that Prause said by "<b>a measure</b>" of sexual desire, not by
"the entire Sexual Desire Inventory". When all 14 questions were
calculated there was no correlation, and no headline. Even more
confusing is the study title which used <i>"sexual desire"</i>, rather than what was actually found: "<i>negative correlation with selected questions about partnered sex from the SDI</i>", <i>but no correlation when all SDI questions were calculated</i>".<br />
<br />
Here's <a href="http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/the-sexual-continuum/201307/new-brain-study-questions-existence-sexual-addiction/comments#comment-542939" target="_blank">John Johnson PhD commenting</a> under the Prause interview:<br />
<blockquote>
"The Prause group reported that the only statistically
significant correlation with the EEG response was a negative correlation
(r=-.33) with desire for sex with a partner. In other words, there was a
slight tendency for subjects with strong EEG responses to erotica to
have lower desire for sex with a partner. How does that say anything
about whether the brain responses of people who have trouble regulating
their viewing of erotica are similar to addicts or non-addicts with a
high libido?"</blockquote>
<b>Simple: </b>No correlation existed between EEG readings and the 14-question sexual
desire inventory. Goodbye study title and headlines. Even if a positive
correlation existed, the claim that "high desire" is mutually exclusive
from "addiction" is preposterous. <b>More to the point, P300 readings were <i>negatively</i> correlated (r=-.33) with desire for sex with a partner. Put simply </b>- <b>less desire for sex, but greater cue reactivity for porn. </b><br />
<h3>
<b> </b></h3>
<h3>
<b>CLAIM NUMBER 3:</b> Porn addiction doesn't exist
because of a lack of correlation between subjects' EEG readings and
subjects' scores on the Sexual Compulsivity Scale.</h3>
<h3>
</h3>
<h3>
</h3>
<h3>
</h3>
<b>The<i> lack of correlations</i> between EEG and questionnaires is easily explained by many factors:</b><br />
<br />
<b>1)</b> The subjects were <a href="http://www.researchgate.net/publication/260248374_Table_1_Demographics_with_sexual_orientation" target="_blank" title="able 1 Demographics with sexual orientation">men and women, including 7 non-heterosexuals</a>, but were all shown standard, possibly uninteresting, male+female images. This alone discounts any findings. Why?<br />
<ul>
<li>Study after study confirm that men and women have significantly different brain responses to sexual images or films.</li>
<li>Valid addiction brain studies involve homogenous subjects: same sex, same sexual orientation, along with similar ages and IQ's.</li>
<li>How can researchers justify non-heterosexuals in an experiment with
only heterosexual porn - and then draw vast conclusions from a
(predictable) lack of correlation?</li>
</ul>
<b>2) </b>The subjects were not pre-screened. Valid
addiction brain studies screen individuals for pre-existing
conditions (depression, OCD, other addictions, etc.). See the <a href="http://www.yourbrainonporn.com/cambridge-university-brain-scans-find-porn-addiction" target="_blank">Cambridge study </a>for an example of proper screening & methodology.<br />
<br />
<b>3)</b> Subjects experienced varying degrees of compulsive porn use, from severe to relatively minor. A quote from Prause:<br />
<blockquote>
"This study only included people who reported problems,
ranging from relatively minor to overwhelming problems, controlling
their viewing of visual sexual stimuli."</blockquote>
<ul>
</ul>
This alone could explain varying results that didn't correlate
in a predictable way. Valid addiction brain studies compare a group of
addicts to non-addicts. This study had neither.<br />
<ul>
</ul>
<b>4)</b> The SCS (Sexual Compulsivity Scale) isn't a
valid assessment test for Internet-porn addiction or for women. It was
created in 1995 and designed with uncontrolled sexual <i>relations</i> in mind (in connection with investigating the AIDS epidemic). The <a href="http://personality-testing.info/tests/SCS.php" target="_blank" title="Sexual Compulsivity Scale">SCS says</a>:<br />
<blockquote>
"The scale has been should [shown?] to predict rates of
sexual behaviors, numbers of sexual partners, practice of a variety of
sexual behaviors, and histories of sexually transmitted diseases."</blockquote>
Moreover, the SCS's developer warns that this tool won't show psychopathology in women,<br />
<blockquote>
"Associations between sexual compulsivity scores and
other markers of psychopathology showed different patterns for men and
women; sexual compulsivity was associated with indexes of
psychopathology in men but not in women."</blockquote>
<b>Simple: </b>A valid addiction "brain study" must: 1) have
homogenous subjects and controls, 2) screen for other mental disorders
and addictions, 3) use validated questionnaires and interviews to assure
the subjects are actually addicts. This EEG study on porn users did
none of these. This alone discounts SPAN Lab's results.<br />
<br />
<h3>
Analysis of <i>Steele et al.</i> from this peer-reviewed review of the literature - <b><a href="http://www.mdpi.com/2076-328X/5/3/388/htm"><i>Neuroscience of Internet Pornography Addiction: A Review and Update</i> (2015) </a></b></h3>
<h3>
</h3>
An EEG study on those complaining of problems regulating their
viewing of internet pornography has reported the neural reactivity to
sexual stimuli [<a href="http://www.mdpi.com/2076-328X/5/3/388/htm#B303-behavsci-05-00388" title="">303</a>].
The study was designed to examine the relationship between ERP
amplitudes when viewing emotional and sexual images and questionnaire
measures of hypersexuality and sexual desire. The authors concluded that
the absence of correlations between scores on hypersexuality
questionnaires and mean P300 amplitudes when viewing sexual images “fail
to provide support for models of pathological hypersexuality” [<a href="http://www.mdpi.com/2076-328X/5/3/388/htm#B303-behavsci-05-00388" title="">303</a>]
(p. 10). However, the lack of correlations may be better explained by
arguable flaws in the methodology. For example, this study used a
heterogeneous subject pool (males and females, including 7
non-heterosexuals).<br />
<br />
Cue-reactivity studies comparing the brain response
of addicts to healthy controls require homogenous subjects (same sex,
similar ages) to have valid results. Specific to porn addiction studies,
it’s well established that males and females differ appreciably in
brain and autonomic responses to the identical visual sexual stimuli [<a href="http://www.mdpi.com/2076-328X/5/3/388/htm#B304-behavsci-05-00388" title="">304</a>,<a href="http://www.mdpi.com/2076-328X/5/3/388/htm#B305-behavsci-05-00388" title="">305</a>,<a href="http://www.mdpi.com/2076-328X/5/3/388/htm#B306-behavsci-05-00388" title="">306</a>].
Additionally, two of the screening questionnaires have not been
validated for addicted IP users, and the subjects were not screened for
other manifestations of addiction or mood disorders.<br />
<br />
Moreover, the conclusion listed in the abstract, “Implications for
understanding hypersexuality as high desire, rather than disordered, are
discussed” [<a href="http://www.mdpi.com/2076-328X/5/3/388/htm#B303-behavsci-05-00388" title="">303</a>]
(p. 1) seems out of place considering the study’s finding that P300
amplitude was negatively correlated with desire for sex with a partner.
As explained in Hilton (2014), this finding “directly contradicts the
interpretation of P300 as high desire” [<a href="http://www.mdpi.com/2076-328X/5/3/388/htm#B307-behavsci-05-00388" title="">307</a>].
The Hilton analysis further suggests that the absence of a control
group and the inability of EEG technology to discriminate between “high
sexual desire” and “sexual compulsion” render the Steele et al. findings
uninterpretable [<a href="http://www.mdpi.com/2076-328X/5/3/388/htm#B307-behavsci-05-00388" title="">307</a>].<br />
<br />
Finally, a significant finding of the paper (higher P300 amplitude to
sexual images, relative to neutral pictures) is given minimal attention
in the discussion section. This is unexpected, as a common finding with
substance and internet addicts is an increased P300 amplitude relative
to neutral stimuli when exposed to visual cues associated with their
addiction [<a href="http://www.mdpi.com/2076-328X/5/3/388/htm#B308-behavsci-05-00388" title="">308</a>]. In fact, Voon, et al. [<a href="http://www.mdpi.com/2076-328X/5/3/388/htm#B262-behavsci-05-00388" title="">262</a>]
devoted a section of their discussion analyzing this prior study’s P300
findings. Voon et al. provided the explanation of importance of P300
not provided in the Steele paper, particularly in regards to established
addiction models, concluding,<br />
<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<div style="margin-left: .5in;">
<i>Thus, both dACC activity in the present CSB study and P300 activity reported in a previous CSB study[<a href="http://www.mdpi.com/2076-328X/5/3/388/htm#B303-behavsci-05-00388" title="">303</a>]
may reflect similar underlying processes of attentional capture.
Similarly, both studies show a correlation between these measures with
enhanced desire. Here we suggest that dACC activity correlates with
desire, which may reflect an index of craving, but does not correlate
with liking suggestive of on an incentive-salience model of addictions. [<a href="http://www.mdpi.com/2076-328X/5/3/388/htm#B262-behavsci-05-00388" title="">262</a>] (p. 7)</i></div>
</blockquote>
<div style="margin-left: .5in;">
<br /></div>
So while these authors [<a href="http://www.mdpi.com/2076-328X/5/3/388/htm#B303-behavsci-05-00388" title="">303</a>]
claimed that their study refuted the application of the addiction model
to CSB, Voon et al. posited that these authors actually provided
evidence supporting said model.<br />
<br />
<h2>
THE LONG VERSION</h2>
<h3>
</h3>
<h3>
The Results Say One thing, While the Study's Conclusions & Authors Imply the Opposite</h3>
<h3>
</h3>
The study's title, along with the many headlines, state that a
correlation (relation) was found between "sexual desire" as measured by
the <a href="http://www.reuniting.info/download/pdf/sdi-2.pdf" target="_blank">Sexual Desire Inventory</a> and EEG readings. According to everything we can find, the SDI is a <a href="http://www.reuniting.info/download/pdf/sdi-2.pdf">14-question test</a>.
Nine of its questions address partnered ("dyadic") sexual desire and
four address solo ("solitary") sexual desire. Just for clarification,
the study's <i>negative</i> correlation was attained with only the <i>partnered</i> sex questions from the SDI. There was no significant correlation between P300 readings and <i><b>all </b></i>the questions on the SDI. The study's results taken from the abstract:<br />
<blockquote>
<b>RESULTS</b>: "Larger P300 amplitude differences to pleasant sexual stimuli, relative to neutral stimuli, <b>was negatively related to measures of sexual desire</b>, but not related to measures of hypersexuality."</blockquote>
Translation: Subjects with greater cue-reactivity to porn (higher
EEG's) scored lower in their desire for sex with a partner (but not
their desire to masturbate). To put it another way, <i><b>greater cue-reactivity</b></i> correlated with <b><i>less desire to have sex </i></b>(yet still desiring to masturbate to porn). Yet the very next sentence turns <i>lower desire for sex</i> with a partner into <i>high</i> <i>sexual desire</i>:<br />
<blockquote>
<b>CONCLUSION</b>: Implications for<b> understanding hypersexuality</b> <b>as high desire</b>, rather than disordered, are discussed.</blockquote>
Is Steele et al now claiming that they really found <i>high sexual desire</i> correlating with <i>higher P300 readings</i>? Well, that didn't happen, as John Johnson PhD explained in <a data-cke-saved-href="http://tinyurl.com/q54dv6y" href="http://tinyurl.com/q54dv6y">this peer-reviewed rebuttal</a>:<br />
<blockquote>
‘The single statistically significant finding says nothing about addiction. Furthermore, this significant finding is a <b>negative correlation between P300 and desire for sex with a partner</b> (r=−0.33), <b>indicating
that P300 amplitude is related to lower sexual desire; this directly
contradicts the interpretation of P300 as high desire</b>. There
are no comparisons to other addict groups. There are no comparisons to
control groups. The conclusions drawn by the researchers are a quantum
leap from the data, which say nothing about whether people who report
trouble regulating their viewing of sexual images have or do not have
brain responses similar to cocaine or any other kinds of addicts’</blockquote>
Why must John Johnson remind the authors and everyone else, that Steel et al. actually found "lower desire for sex with a partner", rather than
"high sexual desire"? Because most of Steele et al and the media blitz imply that cue-reactivity to porn correlated with high sexual desire.
The conclusion taken from the abstract:<br />
<blockquote>
<i><b>Conclusion</b></i>: Implications for understanding hypersexuality as high desire, rather than disordered, are discussed.</blockquote>
Say what? But study reported that subjects with greater cue-reactivity had <b>lower desire for sex with a partner</b>.<br />
<br />
In addition, the phrase "sexual desire" is repeated 63
times in the study, and the study's title (Sexual Desire, Not
Hypersexuality....) implies that higher brain activation to cues was
associated with higher sexual desire. Read the study's <i>full </i>conclusion and you too might assume Steele et al. found higher rather than lower sexual desire:<br />
<blockquote>
In conclusion, the first measures of neural reactivity to
visual sexual and non-sexual stimuli in a sample reporting problems
regulating their viewing of similar stimuli fail to provide support for
models of pathological hypersexuality, as measured by questionnaires.
Specifically, differences in the P300 window between sexual and neutral
stimuli were <b>predicted by sexual desire</b>, but not by any (of three) measures of hypersexuality. <b>If sexual desire</b> most strongly predicts neural responses to sexual stimuli, <b>management of sexual desire</b>, without necessarily addressing some of the proposed concomitants of hypersexuality, might be an effective method for <b>reducing distressing sexual feelings or behaviors.</b></blockquote>
Nowhere do we see <i>lower </i>sexual desire. Instead we are given - "<b>predicted by sexual desire" </b>and <b>"management of sexual desire" </b>and<b> "reducing distressing sexual feelings or behaviors." </b>Not
only did the study hypnotize readers into believing porn addiction was
really just high libido, Prause reinforced this meme in <a href="http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/the-sexual-continuum/201307/new-brain-study-questions-existence-sexual-addiction" target="_blank">in her interviews</a>: (note the wording)<br />
<blockquote>
<b>What is the main finding in your study?</b></blockquote>
<blockquote>
"We found that the brain’s response to sexual pictures was not
predicted by any of three different questionnaire measures of
hypersexuality. <b>Brain response was only predicted by <span style="color: maroon;">a measure</span> of sexual desire.</b> In other words, hypersexuality does not appear to explain brain differences in sexual response <b>any more than just having a high libido.</b>"</blockquote>
Prause said by "<b><span style="color: maroon;">a</span> measure</b>"
of sexual desire, not by "the entire Sexual Desire Inventory". When
all 14 questions were calculated there was no correlation, and no headline
to turn upside down. Prause makes the same claim in her <a href="http://newsroom.ucla.edu/releases/is-sexual-addiction-the-real-deal-247423">UCLA press release</a>:<br />
<blockquote>
"The brain's response to sexual pictures was not
predicted by any of the three questionnaire measures of hypersexuality,"
she said. "<b>Brain response was only related to the measure of sexual desire</b>. <b>In
other words, hypersexuality does not appear to explain brain responses
to sexual images any more than just having a high libido.</b>"</blockquote>
In both interviews it is suggested that higher P300 readings were related to "higher libido". Everyone in the media bought it. Considering the findings, Steele et al. should have been called - "<i>negative correlation with questions about partnered sex</i>, <i>but no correlation when all SDI questions were calculated</i>". <br />
<br />
<b>Simple: </b>Cue-reactivity (P300 readings) were <i>negatively</i> correlated (r=-.33) with desire for sex with a partner. Put simply: <b>less desire for sex correlated greater cue-reactivity for porn. </b>Overall,
no correlation existed between EEG readings and the entire 14-question
sexual desire inventory.. Even if a positive correlation existed, the
claim that "high desire" is mutually exclusive from "addiction" is
preposterous.<br />
<br />
Finally, it's important to note that the study contains two errors in regard to the SDI. Quoting the study:<br />
<blockquote>
"<i>The SDI measures levels of sexual desire using<b> two scales</b> composed of <b>seven items each</b>.</i>"</blockquote>
In fact, the <a href="http://www.reuniting.info/download/pdf/sdi-2.pdf" target="_blank">Sexual Desire Inventory</a> contains <b>nine partnered questions</b>, <b>four solitary question</b>s, and <b>one question</b> that cannot be categorized (#14).<br />
<br />
<b>Second mistake</b>: Table 2 says the Solitary test score
range is "3-26," and yet the female mean exceeds it. It's
26.46--literally off the charts. What happened? The four solitary sex
questions (10-13) add up to a possible score of "31".<br />
<br />
The lively media blitz, which accompanied publication of this study,
bases its attention-grabbing headlines on partial SDI results. Yet the
study write-up contains glaring errors about the SDI itself, which do
not engender confidence in the researchers.<br />
<br />
<h3>
<span style="line-height: 115%; mso-bidi-font-family: Arial; mso-bidi-font-size: 14.0pt; mso-bidi-font-style: italic;">High Desire is Mutually Exclusive with Addiction?</span></h3>
<h3>
<span style="line-height: 115%; mso-bidi-font-family: Arial; mso-bidi-font-size: 14.0pt; mso-bidi-font-style: italic;"> </span></h3>
Although Steele et al. actually reported <i>less</i> desire for partnered
sex correlating to cue-reactivity, 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 Steele et al. - <a href="http://www.socioaffectiveneuroscipsychol.net/index.php/snp/article/view/23833/32589" target="_blank">High desire’, or ‘merely’ an addiction? A response to Steele et al., by Donald L. Hilton, Jr., MD*</a>.)<br />
<br />
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).<br />
<br />
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 <a href="http://www.asam.org/for-the-public/definition-of-addiction" target="_blank" title="American Society of Addiction Medicine - definition of addiction">shared by all addicts</a>, such as severe negative repercussions, inability to control use, cravings, etc.<br />
<br />
Is this study part of a rash of studies based on the peculiar logic
that any measure of "high desire," however questionable, grants immunity
from addiction? A Canadian sexologist endeavored to paint this same
picture in a 2010 paper entitled, <a href="http://www.christofflab.ca/pdfs/winters2010-dysregulatedsexuality.pdf" target="_blank">Dysregulated sexuality and high sexual desire: distinct constructs?</a>
Noting that people who seek treatment for sexual behavior addictions
report both dysregulated sexuality and high desire, he boldly concluded:<br />
<blockquote>
"The results of this study suggest that dysregulated
sexuality, as currently conceptualized, labeled, and measured, may
simply be a marker of high sexual desire and the distress associated
with managing a high degree of sexual thoughts, feelings, and needs."</blockquote>
Again, sexual behavior addiction itself produces cravings that often
show up as "a high degree of sexual thoughts, feelings, and needs." It's
simply wishful thinking to suggest "high sexual desire" eliminates the
existence of addiction. Below are studies that directly refute "porn
addiction is really high desre" model:<br />
<br />
<a href="http://www.yourbrainonporn.com/cybersex-addiction-experienced-sexual-arousal-when-watching-pornography-and-not-real-life-sexual">Cybersex
addiction: Experienced sexual arousal when watching pornography and not
real-life sexual contacts makes the difference (2013)</a><br />
<blockquote>
<b>Quote: </b>"Moreover, it was shown that
problematic cybersex users report greater sexual arousal and craving
reactions resulting from pornographic cue presentation. In both studies,
the number and the quality with real-life sexual contacts were not
associated to cybersex addiction."</blockquote>
<a href="http://yourbrainonporn.com/brain-structure-and-functional-connectivity-associated-pornography-consumption-2014">Brain Structure and Functional Connectivity Associated With Pornography Consumption: The Brain on Porn (2014)</a>.<br />
<br />
This fMRI study found that higher hours per week/more years of porn
viewing correlated with less brain activation when exposed to photos of
vanilla porn. Said the researchers:<br />
<blockquote>
"This is in line with the hypothesis that intense
exposure to pornographic stimuli results in a downregulation of the
natural neural response to sexual stimuli<b>." </b></blockquote>
Kühn & Gallinat also reported more porn use correlating with less
reward circuit grey matter and disruption of the circuits involved with
impulse control. In <a href="http://www.dw.com/en/pea-brain-watching-porn-online-will-wear-out-your-brain-and-make-it-shrivel/a-17681654" target="_blank">this article</a> researcher Simone Kühn, said:<br />
<blockquote>
“That could mean that regular consumption of pornography more or less wears out your reward system.”</blockquote>
Kühn says existing psychological, scientific literature suggests
consumers of porn will seek material with novel and more extreme sex
games.<br />
<blockquote>
“That would fit perfectly the hypothesis that their reward systems need growing stimulation.”</blockquote>
Put simply, men who use more porn may need greater stimulation for
the response level seen in lighter consumers, and photos of vanilla porn
are unlikely to register as all that interesting. Less interest,
equates to less attention, and lower EEG readings. End of story.<br />
<br />
<a href="http://www.yourbrainonporn.com/cambridge-university-brain-scans-find-porn-addiction" target="_blank" title="Cambridge Study: Internet porn addiction mirrors drug addiction (2014)">Neural Correlates of Sexual Cue Reactivity in Individuals with and without Compulsive Sexual Behaviours (2014)</a><br />
<br />
This study found that porn addicts had same brain activity as seen in
drug addicts and alcoholics. The researchers also reported that 60% of
subjects (average age: 25) had difficulty achieving erections/arousal
with real partners, yet could achieve erections with porn. This finding
completely dismantles the claim that compulsive porn users simply have
higher sexual desire than those who aren't compulsive porn users.<br />
<br />
<h3>
<a href="https://www.blogger.com/null" id="why" name="why"></a>Why No Correlations Between Questionnaires And EEG Readings?</h3>
<h3>
</h3>
A major claim by Steele et al. is that the<i> lack of correlations</i>
between subjects EEG readings (P300) and 3 other questionnaires means
porn addiction doesn't exist. Two major reasons account for the lack of
correlation:<br />
<ol>
<li>The researchers chose vastly different subjects (women, men,
heterosexuals, non-heterosexuals), but showed them all standard,
possibly uninteresting, male+female sexual images.<b> Put simply,
the results of this study were dependent on the premise that males,
females, and non-heterosexuals are no different in their response to
sexual images. </b>This is clearly not the case (below).</li>
<li>The two questionaires Steele et al. relied upon in both EEG studies to
assess "porn addiction" are not validated to screen for internet porn
use/addiction. In the press, Prause repeatedly pointed to the lack of
correlation between EEG scores and "hypersexuality" scales, but there is
no reason to expect a correlation in porn addicts.</li>
</ol>
<b><a href="https://www.blogger.com/null" id="diversity" name="diversity"><span data-mce-style="text-decoration: underline;">Unacceptable Diversity Of Test Subjects</span></a>:</b>
The researchers chose vastly different subjects (women, men,
heterosexuals, non-heterosexuals), but showed them all standard,
possibly uninteresting, male+female porn. This matters, because it
violates standard procedure for addiction studies, in which researchers
select <i>homogeneous</i> subjects in terms of age, gender, orientation, even similar IQ's (<i>plus</i> a homogeneous control group) in order to avoid distortions caused by such differences.<br />
This is especially critical for studies like this one, which measured
arousal to sexual images, as research confirms that men and women have
significantly different brain responses to sexual images or films. This
flaw alone explains the lack of correlations between EEG readings and
questionnaires. Previous studies confirm significant differences between
males and females in response to sexual images. See, for example:<br />
<ul>
<li><a data-mce-="" href="http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23519591">Gender Differences in Sexual Arousal and Affective Responses to Erotica.</a></li>
<li><a href="http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22450197">Sex differences in brain activation to emotional stimuli: a meta-analysis of neuroimaging studies</a></li>
<li><a href="http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8561662">Habituation of female sexual arousal to slides and film.</a></li>
<li><a data-mce-="" href="http://www.yourbrainonporn.com/skin-sympathetic-nerve-activity-humans-during-exposure-emotionally-charged-images-sex-differences">Skin sympathetic nerve activity in humans during exposure to emotionally-charged images: sex differences</a></li>
<li><a href="http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23643564">The late
positive potential (LPP) in response to varying types of emotional and
cigarette stimuli in smokers: a content comparison</a></li>
<li><a href="http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25971857">Sex differences in interactions between nucleus accumbens and visual cortex by explicit visual erotic stimuli: an fMRI study.</a></li>
<li><a href="http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15129155">Affective picture perception: gender differences in visual cortex?</a></li>
<li><a href="http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18719987">Sex-specific content preferences for visual sexual stimuli.</a></li>
<li><a href="http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18343987">Sex differences in patterns of genital sexual arousal: measurement artifacts or true phenomena?</a></li>
<li><a href="http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17362952">Sex differences in viewing sexual stimuli: an eye-tracking study in men and women</a></li>
<li><a href="http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15004563">Men and women differ in amygdala response to visual sexual stimuli</a></li>
<li><a href="http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22406875">Effects of
gender and relationship context in audio narratives on genital and
subjective sexual response in heterosexual women and men.</a></li>
<li><a href="http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17668312">Sex differences in visual attention to erotic and non-erotic stimuli</a></li>
<li><a href="http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2739403/">Sex Differences in Response to Visual Sexual Stimuli: A Review</a></li>
<li><a href="http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18006098">Skin conductance responses to visual sexual stimuli.</a></li>
</ul>
Can we be confident that a <i>non-heterosexual </i>has the
same enthusiasm for male-female porn as a heterosexual male? No, and
his/her inclusion could distort EEG averages rendering meaningful
correlations unlikely. See, for example, <a data-mce-="" href="http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20576388" target="_blank">Neural circuits of disgust induced by sexual stimuli in homosexual and heterosexual men: an fMRI study.</a><br />
<br />
Surprisingly, Prause herself stated in <a href="http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/14681994.2012.660141#preview" target="_blank" title="Clinical and research concerns with vibratory stimulation: a review and pilot study of common stimulation devices">an earlier study (2012)</a> that individuals vary tremendously in their response to sexual images:<br />
<blockquote>
"Film stimuli are vulnerable to individual differences in
attention to different components of the stimuli (Rupp & Wallen,
2007), preference for specific content (Janssen, Goodrich, Petrocelli,
& Bancroft, 2009) or clinical histories making portions of the
stimuli aversive (Wouda et al.,1998)."</blockquote>
<blockquote>
"Still, individuals will vary tremendously in the visual cues that
signal sexual arousal to them (Graham, Sanders, Milhausen, &
McBride, 2004)."</blockquote>
In a <a href="http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23835845" target="_blank" title="Biases for Affective Versus Sexual Content in Multidimensional Scaling Analysis: An Individual Difference Perspective.">Prause study</a> published a few weeks before this one she said:<br />
<blockquote>
"Many studies using the popular International Affective
Picture System (Lang, Bradley, & Cuthbert, 1999) use different
stimuli for the men and women in their sample."</blockquote>
Maybe Prause should read her own statements to discover the reason
why her current EEG readings varied so much. Individual differences are
normal, and large variations are to be expected with a sexually diverse
group of subjects.<br />
<br />
<a href="https://www.blogger.com/null" id="irrelevant" name="irrelevant"><u><b>Irrelevant Questionnaires:</b></u></a><b> </b>The SCS (<a href="https://www.chip.uconn.edu/chipweb/documents/Research/K_SexualCompulsivityScale.pdf" target="_blank">Sexual Compulsivity Scale</a>) cannot assess Internet-porn addiction. It was created in 1995 and designed with uncontrolled sexual <i>relations</i> in mind (in connection with investigating the AIDS epidemic). The <a href="http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8609589/" target="_blank" title="Sexual Compulsivity Scale">SCS says</a>:<br />
<blockquote>
"The scale has been should [shown?] to predict rates of
sexual behaviors, numbers of sexual partners, practice of a variety of
sexual behaviors, and histories of sexually transmitted diseases."</blockquote>
Moreover, the SCS's developer warns that this tool won't show psychopathology in women:<br />
<blockquote>
"Associations between sexual compulsivity scores and
other markers of psychopathology showed different patterns for men and
women; sexual compulsivity was associated with indexes of
psychopathology in men but <b>not in women</b>."</blockquote>
Furthermore, the SCS includes partner-related questions that
Internet-porn addicts might score quite differently compared with sex
addicts, given that compulsive porn users often have a far <a href="http://onania.org/asm/post/13003" target="_blank" title="Onania support group">greater appetite for cyber erotica</a> than actual sex.<br />
<br />
Like the SCS, the second hypersexuality questionnaire (<a href="http://https//books.google.com/books?id=gUnbAAAAQBAJ&lpg=PA148&ots=Ks2cLmarht&lr&pg=PA150#v=onepage&q&f=true" target="_blank" title="CBSOB - hypersexuality">the CBSOB</a>)
has no questions about Internet porn use. It was designed to screen for
"hypersexual" subjects, and out-of-control sexual behaviors - not
strictly the overuse of sexually explicit materials on the internet.<br />
<br />
Another questionnaire the researchers administered is the PCES (Pornography Consumption Effect Scale), which has been called a "<a href="http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/cupids-poisoned-arrow/201306/pornography-consumption-effect-scale-useful-or-not" target="_blank" title="Pornography Consumption Effect Scale">psychometric nightmare</a>," and there's no reason to believe it can indicate anything about Internet porn addiction <i>or</i> sex addiction.<br />
<br />
Thus, the lack of correlation between EEG readings and these questionnaires contributes no support to the study's conclusions or the author's claims.<br />
<br />
<b><a href="https://www.blogger.com/null" id="screen" name="screen"><u>No Pre-Screening</u></a>:</b>
Steele et al's subjects were not pre-screened. Valid addiction brain studies
screen out individuals with pre-existing conditions (depression, OCD,
other addictions, etc.). This is the only way responsible researchers
can draw conclusions about addiction. See the <a href="http://www.yourbrainonporn.com/cambridge-university-brain-scans-find-porn-addiction" target="_blank">Cambridge study</a> for an example of proper screening & methodology.<br />
<br />
Steele et al's subjects were also not pre-screened for porn addiction.
Standard procedure for addiction studies is to screen subjects with an
addiction test in order to compare those who test positive for an
addiction with those who do not. These researchers did not do this, even
though an <a href="http://www.reuniting.info/download/pdf/s-IAT_english.pdf" target="_blank" title="s-IAT ">Internet porn-addiction test exists</a>. Instead, researchers administered the Sexual Compulsivity Scale <i>after</i> participants were already chosen. As explained, the SCS is not valid for porn addiction or for women.<br />
<br />
<b><u>Use of Generic Porn For Diverse Subjects</u>:</b> Steele et al. admits that its choice of "inadequate" porn may have altered
results. Even under ideal conditions, choice of test porn is tricky, as
porn users (especially addicts) often escalate through a series of
tastes. <a href="http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/cupids-poisoned-arrow/201110/can-you-trust-your-johnson" target="_blank" title="Can You Trust Your Johnson?">Many report</a> having little sexual response to porn genres that do not match their porn-<i>du-jour</i>—including
genres that they found quite arousing earlier in their porn-watching
careers. For example, much of today's porn is consumed via
high-definition videos, and the stills used here may not elicit the same
response.<br />
<br />
Thus, the use of generic porn can affect results. If a porn
enthusiast is anticipating viewing porn, reward circuit activity
presumably increases. Yet if the porn turns out to be some boring
heterosexual pictures that don't match his/her current genre or stills
instead of high-definition fetish videos, the user may have little or no
response, or <a href="http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20576388" target="_blank">even aversion</a>. "What was <i>that</i>?"<br />
<br />
This is the equivalent of testing the cue reactivity of bunch of food
addicts by serving everyone a single food: baked potatoes. If a
participant doesn't happen to like baked potatoes, she must not have a
problem with eating too much, right?<br />
<br />
A valid addiction "brain study" must: 1) have homogenous subjects and
controls, 2) screen out other mental disorders and other addictions,
and 3) use validated questionnaires and interviews to assure the
subjects are actually porn addicts. Steele et al. did none of
these, yet drew vast conclusions and published them widely.<br />
<br />
<h3>
</h3>
<h3>
No Control Group, Yet Claims Required One</h3>
<br />
The researchers did not investigate a control group of non-problem
porn users. That didn't stop the authors from making claims in the media
which required a control group comparison. For example:<br />
<a data-cke-saved-href="http://newsroom.ucla.edu/releases/is-sexual-addiction-the-real-deal-247423" data-mce-href="http://newsroom.ucla.edu/releases/is-sexual-addiction-the-real-deal-247423" href="http://newsroom.ucla.edu/releases/is-sexual-addiction-the-real-deal-247423"><b>UCLA press release</b>:</a><br />
<blockquote>
"If
they indeed suffer from hypersexuality, or sexual addiction, their
brain response to visual sexual stimuli could be expected be higher, in
much the same way that the brains of cocaine addicts have been shown to
react to images of the drug in other studies."</blockquote>
<a data-cke-saved-href="http://losangeles.cbslocal.com/2013/07/18/ucla-study-suggests-sexual-addiction-isnt-a-real-disorder/" data-mce-href="http://losangeles.cbslocal.com/2013/07/18/ucla-study-suggests-sexual-addiction-isnt-a-real-disorder/" href="http://losangeles.cbslocal.com/2013/07/18/ucla-study-suggests-sexual-addiction-isnt-a-real-disorder/"><b>TV interview:</b></a><br />
<blockquote>
<b>Reporter:</b> "They were shown various erotic images, and their brain activity monitored."<br />
<b></b></blockquote>
<blockquote>
<b>Prause</b>: "If you think sexual problems are an addiction, we would have expected to see an <span style="color: red;"><b>enhanced response</b></span>,
maybe, to those sexual images. If you think it's a problem of
impulsivity, we would have expected to see decreased responses to those
sexual images. <b>And <span data-mce-style="color: #ff0000;" style="color: red;">the fact that we didn't see any of those relationships</span> suggests that there's not great support for looking at these problem sexual behaviors as an addiction."</b></blockquote>
In reality, Steele et al. reported higher P300 readings for porn images than for neutral images. That is claerly an "<b>enhanced response</b>". Commenting under the <a data-cke-saved-href="http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/the-sexual-continuum/201307/new-brain-study-questions-existence-sexual-addiction" data-mce-href="http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/the-sexual-continuum/201307/new-brain-study-questions-existence-sexual-addiction" href="http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/the-sexual-continuum/201307/new-brain-study-questions-existence-sexual-addiction">Psychology Today interview </a>of Prause, p<a data-cke-saved-href="http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/the-sexual-continuum/201307/new-brain-study-questions-existence-sexual-addiction/comments#comment-556448" data-mce-href="http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/the-sexual-continuum/201307/new-brain-study-questions-existence-sexual-addiction/comments#comment-556448" href="http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/the-sexual-continuum/201307/new-brain-study-questions-existence-sexual-addiction/comments#comment-556448">sychology professor John A. Johnson said</a>:<br />
<blockquote>
"My
mind still boggles at the Prause claim that her subjects' brains did
not respond to sexual images like drug addicts' brains respond to their
drug, given that she reports higher P300 readings for the sexual images.
Just like addicts who show P300 spikes when presented with their drug
of choice. How could she draw a conclusion that is the opposite of the
actual results? I think it could be do to her preconceptions--what she
expected to find."</blockquote>
In short, what Prause boldly
proclaimed in her many media interviews is not backed up by the results.
Another claim from the interview that required a control group:<br />
<blockquote>
<b>Mustanski</b>: What was the purpose of the study?<br />
<b></b><b></b></blockquote>
<blockquote>
<b>Prause:</b>
Our study tested whether people who report such problems look like
other addicts from their brain responses to sexual images. Studies of
drug addictions, such as cocaine, have shown a consistent pattern of
brain response to images of the drug of abuse, so we predicted that we
should see the same pattern in people who report problems with sex if it
was, in fact, an addiction.</blockquote>
Prause's reply to
Mustanski indicates that her study was designed to see if the brain
response to sexual images for people reporting problems with sex was
similar to the brain response of drug users when they encounter images
of the drug to which they are addicted.<br />
<br />
A reading of the cocaine study she cites (<i><a data-cke-saved-href="http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3086977/" data-mce-href="http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3086977/" href="http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3086977/">Dunning, et al., 2011</a>)</i>,
however, indicates that the design of Steele et al. was quite different
from the Dunning study, and that Steele et al. did not even look for
the kind of brain responses recorded in the Dunning study.<br />
<br />
The Dunning study used three groups: 27 abstinent cocaine users, 28 current cocaine users, and 29 non-using control subjects.
Steele et al. used only one sample of persons: those who reported
problems regulating their viewing of sexual images. Whereas the Dunning
study was able to compare the responses of cocaine addicts to healthy
controls, the Prause study did not compare the responses of the troubled
sample with a control group.<br />
<br />
There are more differences. The
Dunning study measured several different event-related potentials (ERPs)
in the brain, because previous research had indicated important
differences in the psychological processes reflected in the ERPs. The
Dunning study separately measured early posterior negativity (EPN),
thought to reflect early selective attention, and late positive
potential (LPP), thought to reflect further processing of motivationally
significant material. The Dunning study further distinguished the early
component of LPP, thought to represent initial attention capture, from
the later component of LPP, thought to reflect sustained processing.
Distinguishing these different ERPs is important because differences
among the abstinent addicts, current users, and non-using controls
depended on which ERP was being assessed.<br />
<br />
In contrast, Steele et
al. looked only at the ERP called P300, which Dunning compares to the
early window of LPP. By their own admission, Prause and her colleagues
report that this might not have been the best strategy:<br />
<blockquote>
"Another
possibility is that the P300 is not the best place to identify
relationships with sexually motivating stimuli. The slightly later LPP
appears more strongly linked to motivation.<b>"</b></blockquote>
The upshot is that Steele et al <span data-mce-style="text-decoration: underline;" style="text-decoration: underline;"><b>did not</b> in fact examine</span> w<i>hether the brain responses of sexually troubled individuals "showed the same pattern</i>"
as the responses of addicts. They did not use the same ERP variables
used in the cocaine study and they did not use an abstinent group and a
control group, so they should not have compared their results to the
Dunning study claiming the comparison was "apples to apples."<br />
<br />
<h3>
EEG Technology Limitations</h3>
<h3>
</h3>
Finally, EEG technology cannot measure the results the researchers claim it can. Although the researchers insist that, "<i>Neural
responsivity to sexual stimuli in a sample of hypersexuals could
differentiate these two competing explanations of symptoms [evidence of
addiction versus high sexual desire],</i>" in fact it's unlikely that
EEGs can do this at all. Although EEG technology has been around for 100
years, debate continues as to what actually causes brain waves, or what
specific EEG readings really signify. As a consequence, experimental
results may be interpreted in a variety of ways. See <a href="http://www.amazon.com/Brainwashed-Seductive-Appeal-Mindless-Neuroscience/dp/0465018777" target="_blank" title="Brainwashed: The Seductive Appeal of Mindless Neuroscience"><i>Brainwashed: The Seductive Appeal of Mindless Neuroscience</i></a> for a discussion of how EEGs can be misused to draw unfounded conclusions.<br />
<br />
EEGs measure electrical activity on the outside of the skull, and
addiction researchers who use EEGs look for very narrow signals of
specific aspects of addiction. For example, this <a href="http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23770040" target="_blank" title="Resting-state beta and gamma activity in Internet addiction">recent EEG study on Internet addicts</a>
shows how accomplished Internet-addiction neuroscientists conduct such
experiments. Note that researchers isolate narrow aspects of the brain's
activity, such as impulsivity, and avoid overly broad claims of the
type made here by SPAN Lab. Also note the control group and
pre-screening for addiction, both of which are absent in this SPAN Lab
effort.<br />
<br />
Perhaps the authors are unaware of the technology's inability to distinguish among overlapping cognitive processes:<br />
<blockquote>
"The P300 [EEG measurement] is well known and often used
to measure neural reactivity to emotional, sometimes sexual, visual
stimuli. <i>A drawback to indexing a large, slow ERP component is the
inherent nature of overlapping cognitive processes that underlie such a
component. In the current report, the P300 could be, and most-likely is,
indexing multiple ongoing cognitive processes</i>." (Emphasis added.)</blockquote>
Never mind that, by their own admission, P300 might not be the best
choice for an ERP study of this type. Never mind that conducting
statistical analyses with difference scores has been recognized as
problematic for over 50 years, such that now alternatives to difference
scores are usually used (see <a href="http://public.kenan-flagler.unc.edu/faculty/edwardsj/Edwards2001b.pdf">http://public.kenan-flagler.unc.edu/faculty/edwardsj/Edwards2001b.pdf</a>).
Never mind that we do not really know what the amplitude of P300 to
particular images relative to neutral images really signifies. P300
involves attention to emotionally significant information, but as Prause
and her colleagues admit, they couldn't predict whether P300 in
response to sexual images would be especially elevated for people with
high sexual desire (because they experience strong emotions to sexual
situations) or whether the P300 would be especially flat (because they
were habituated to sexual imagery).<br />
<br />
Nor could they delineate between greater attention (higher P300)
caused by sexual arousal, or greater attention caused by strong <a href="http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12459215" target="_blank" title="May I have your attention, please: electrocortical responses to positive and negative stimuli.">negative emotions</a>,
such as disgust. Nor can EEG technology delineate between a higher P300
reading arising from sexual arousal versus shock/surprise. Nor can EEG
technology tell us if the brain's reward circuitry was activated or not.<br />
<br />
There is a more fundamental problem here: Steele et al.
seems to want to take an either/or approach the viewing of sexual
images—that EEG responses are either due to sexual desire or to an
addictive problem - as if desire can be separated completely from
addictive problems. Would anyone suggest that EEG responses in
alcoholics or cocaine addicts might be due either entirely to their
desire for the addictive substance <i><b>or </b></i>to their addictive problem?<br />
<br />
Other factors can influence EEG readings. What if an image is related
to a genre you like, but the pornstar reminds you of a person you
dislike/fear/don't care to see naked. Your brain will have conflicting
associations for such erotica. These conflicts may well be more likely
in the case of porn images than in the case of, say, cocaine visuals of
powder and noses (used when testing cocaine addicts).<br />
<br />
The point is that multiple associations with a stimulus as complex as sexuality could easily skew EEG readings.<br />
<br />
Also, Steele et al. assumed higher EEG averages indicate higher sexual
arousal, but subjects' EEG averages were in fact all over the map. Is
this because some of them were addicts and others not? Or watching porn
that turned them off. Many factors can affect P300 readings. Consider
the following, from <a href="http://scielo.isciii.es/scielo.php?pid=S0213-61632009000400003&script=sci_arttext" target="_blank">another P300 study</a>:<br />
<blockquote>
Although the functional significance of P300 is still debated<sup>1</sup><sup>, 2</sup>, its amplitude indexes the allocation of resources for the evaluation of stimuli....<b>Reduced P300</b> amplitude has been reported in many psychiatric disorders, including schizophrenia<sup>4</sup>, depression<sup>5</sup>, and alcoholism<sup>6</sup>.</blockquote>
In short, the author's hypothesis that brains of addicts will show
either evidence of addiction or evidence of "high sexual desire" is
uninformed. Yet the abstract creates in the reader the impression that
the study's results will show us that these hypersexuals either
exhibited (1) evidence of addiction or (2) a positive correlation with
"high sexual desire." And the study's title then misleadingly proclaims
"sexual desire" the winner.<br />
<br />
<br />
<h3>
<span style="line-height: 115%;"><span style="font-family: "verdana" , sans-serif;">Cues confounded with addictive behavior</span></span><span style="line-height: 115%;"><span style="font-family: "verdana" , sans-serif;">:</span> </span><span style="font-family: inherit; line-height: 115%;"> </span></h3>
<br />
<br />
<span style="font-family: inherit; line-height: 115%;">Another problem with the
study's design is that SPAN Lab confuses addiction-related cues with addiction
itself (behavior). In this study, the researchers claim that watching porn is a
cue, not unlike an alcoholic viewing a picture of a vodka bottle, and that
masturbation is the addictive activity. This is incorrect. </span><br />
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><span style="line-height: 115%; mso-bidi-font-size: 14.0pt;"><br /></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="line-height: 115%; mso-bidi-font-size: 14.0pt;"><span style="font-family: inherit;">Watching
porn, which is what researchers asked these subjects to do, is <i>the</i> addictive activity for an Internet
porn addict. Many users watch even when masturbation isn't an option (e.g.,
while riding the bus, on library computers, at work, in waiting rooms, etc.).
Viewing porn for stimulation <i>is </i>their
uncontrolled behavior.</span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="line-height: 115%; mso-bidi-font-size: 14.0pt;"><span style="font-family: inherit;"><br /></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="line-height: 115%; mso-bidi-font-size: 14.0pt;"><span style="font-family: inherit;">In
contrast, true cues for porn addicts would be such things as seeing bookmarks
of their favorite porn sites, hearing a word or seeing an image that reminds
them of their favorite porn fetish or porn star, private access to highspeed
Internet, and so forth. To be sure, seeing a visual that signals a fetish might
serve as a cue for someone with an addiction to that genre of fetish porn, but
here researchers used generic porn, not porn tailored to subjects' individual
tastes.</span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="line-height: 115%; mso-bidi-font-size: 14.0pt;"><span style="font-family: inherit;"><br /></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="line-height: 115%; mso-bidi-font-size: 14.0pt;"><span style="font-family: inherit;">The
assumption that this study is "just like" drug studies, is one of the
many shaky assumptions<span style="font-family: inherit;"> Steele et al. makes</span> Keep in mind that a picture of a
blackjack table is not gambling; a picture of a bowl of ice cream is not
eating. Viewing porn, in contrast, <i>is </i>the
addictive activity. No one has any idea what EEG readings <i>should </i>be for porn addicts engaging in their addictive activity.</span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="line-height: 115%; mso-bidi-font-size: 14.0pt;"><span style="font-family: inherit;"><br /></span></span></div>
<span style="line-height: 115%; mso-bidi-font-size: 14.0pt;"><span style="font-family: inherit;">By
discussing their results in light of genuine cue research relating to other
addictions, the researchers imply that they are comparing "apples to
apples." They are not. First, the other addiction studies </span></span><span style="line-height: 115%; mso-bidi-font-size: 14.0pt;"><span style="font-family: inherit;"><span style="line-height: 115%; mso-bidi-font-size: 14.0pt;"><span style="font-family: inherit;"><span style="font-family: inherit;">Steele et al. </span></span></span>cites involve
chemical addictions. Porn addiction is not as easy to test in the lab for
reasons already explained. Second, the design of </span></span><span style="line-height: 115%; mso-bidi-font-size: 14.0pt;"><span style="font-family: inherit;"><span style="line-height: 115%; mso-bidi-font-size: 14.0pt;"><span style="font-family: inherit;"><span style="font-family: inherit;">Steele et al.</span></span></span> is entirely
different from those studies it cites (no control groups, etc.).</span></span><br />
<br />
<span style="line-height: 115%; mso-bidi-font-size: 14.0pt;"><span style="font-family: inherit;">Future <span style="font-family: inherit;">studies</span> on cue<span style="font-family: inherit;">-</span>reactivity t<span style="font-family: inherit;">o sexual</span> images or explicit film<span style="font-family: inherit;">s must be very cautious in <span style="font-family: inherit;">their</span> <span style="font-family: inherit;">interpretation</span> of the results. For example a diminished brain <span style="font-family: inherit;">response</span> could indicate <span style="font-family: inherit;">desensitization or habituation, rather than "not being addicted". </span></span></span></span><br />
<br />
<h3>
<b>Conclusion</b></h3>
First, one can make a strong argument that this study should have
never been published. Its diversity of subjects, questionnaires
incapable of assessing internet porn addiction, lack of screening for
co-morbidities, and absence of control group resulted in unreliable results.<br />
<br />
Second, the solitary correlation - <i>less desire for partnered sex correlating with higher P300</i>
- indicates that more porn use leads to greater cue-reactivity
(cravings for porn), yet less desire to have sex with a real person. Put
simply: Subjects using more porn craved porn, but their desire for real
sex was lower than in those who viewed less. Not exactly what the
headlines stated or the authors claimed in the media (that more porn use
was correlated with higher desire "sexual desire").<br />
<br />
Third, the "physiological" finding of <i>higher P300 when exposed to porn </i>indicates sensitization (hyper-reactivity to porn), which is an addiction process.<br />
<br />
Finally, we have the authors making claims to the media that are
light years away from the data. From the headlines, it's clearly
journalists bought the spin. This points to the bleak state of science
journalism. Science bloggers and news outlets simply repeated what they
were fed. No one in the media read the study, checked the facts, or
asked for an educated second opinion from actual addiction
neuroscientists. If you want to promote a certain agenda, all you need
to do is concoct a clever press release. It matters not what your study
actually found, or that your flawed methodology may only produce a
jumbled data salad.<br />
<hr />
<h4>
Also see these critiques of the same study:</h4>
<ul>
<li><a href="http://pornstudyskeptics.blogspot.com/2013/07/misinformed-media-touts-bogus-sex.html" target="_blank">Misinformed Media Touts Bogus Sex Addiction Study, by Robert Weiss, LCSW & Stefanie Carnes PhD</a></li>
<li><a href="http://pornstudyskeptics.blogspot.com/2013/07/dont-call-it-hypersexuality-why-we-need.html" target="_blank">"Don’t Call it Hypersexuality: Why we Need the Term Sex Addiction," By Linda Hatch, PhD</a></li>
</ul>
<hr />
<br />
Similar to Prause's current study, her second study from
2013 found significant differences between controls and "porn addicts" -
"<i><b><a href="http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/10720162.2013.772874#preview" target="_blank">No Evidence of Emotion Dysregulation in “Hypersexuals” Reporting Their Emotions to a Sexual Film (2013)</a></b></i>." As explained in <a href="http://pornstudyskeptics.blogspot.com/2013/07/study-porn-users-report-narrower.html" target="_blank">this critique</a>, the title purposely hides the actual findings. In fact, "porn addicts" had <i>less</i> emotional response when compared to controls. This is not surprising as many <a href="http://yourbrainonporn.com/can-porn-use-blunt-my-emotions" target="_blank" title="Can porn use blunt my emotions?">porn addicts report numbed feelings </a>and
emotions. Prause justified the title by saying she expected "greater
emotional response", but provided no citation for her dubious
"expectation." A more accurate title would have been: "<i>Subjects who have difficulty controlling their porn use show less emotional response to sexual films</i>". Which means they are desensitized and bored with vanilla porn. <br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
_______________<br />
<h3>
UPDATE: Nicole Prause TV interview doesn't match study results</h3>
<div>
</div>
As a psychology professor pointed out,<br />
<blockquote>
In <a href="http://losangeles.cbslocal.com/2013/07/18/ucla-study-suggests-sexual-addiction-isnt-a-real-disorder/">this TV interview</a> Nicole Prause totally contradicts one of her findings. I've transcribed that portion:</blockquote>
<blockquote>
<div style="margin-left: 40px;">
<b>Reporter:</b> "They were shown various erotic images, and their brain activity monitored."</div>
<div style="margin-left: 40px;">
<b></b></div>
</blockquote>
<br />
<blockquote>
<div style="margin-left: 40px;">
<b>Prause</b>: "If you think
sexual problems are an addiction, we would have expected to see an
enhanced response, maybe, to those sexual images. If you think it's a
problem of impulsivity, we would have expected to see decreased
responses to those sexual images. And the fact that we didn't see any of
those relationships suggests that there's not great support for looking
at these problem sexual behaviors as an addiction."</div>
</blockquote>
<blockquote>
The written story under the TV window has a section on the <a href="http://newsroom.ucla.edu/portal/ucla/is-sexual-addiction-the-real-deal-247423.aspx">UCLA press release</a> that says essentially the same thing:</blockquote>
<blockquote>
<div style="margin-left: 40px;">
"'If they indeed suffer from
hypersexuality, or sexual addiction, their brain response to visual
sexual stimuli could be expected to be higher, in much the same way that
the brains of cocaine addicts have been shown to react to images of the
drug in other studies,' a UCLA press release on the study explained.</div>
</blockquote>
<blockquote>
<div style="margin-left: 40px;">
And yet, that did not happen."</div>
</blockquote>
<blockquote>
But it did happen! The study DID show a much higher amplitude P300
for the erotic images, compared to the other images. So what Prause says
in the interview doesn't match the study results.</blockquote>
_______________</div>
<br />
<br />
<!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<w:WordDocument>
<w:View>Normal</w:View>
<w:Zoom>0</w:Zoom>
<w:TrackMoves/>
<w:TrackFormatting/>
<w:PunctuationKerning/>
<w:ValidateAgainstSchemas/>
<w:SaveIfXMLInvalid>false</w:SaveIfXMLInvalid>
<w:IgnoreMixedContent>false</w:IgnoreMixedContent>
<w:AlwaysShowPlaceholderText>false</w:AlwaysShowPlaceholderText>
<w:DoNotPromoteQF/>
<w:LidThemeOther>EN-US</w:LidThemeOther>
<w:LidThemeAsian>X-NONE</w:LidThemeAsian>
<w:LidThemeComplexScript>X-NONE</w:LidThemeComplexScript>
<w:Compatibility>
<w:BreakWrappedTables/>
<w:SnapToGridInCell/>
<w:WrapTextWithPunct/>
<w:UseAsianBreakRules/>
<w:DontGrowAutofit/>
<w:SplitPgBreakAndParaMark/>
<w:DontVertAlignCellWithSp/>
<w:DontBreakConstrainedForcedTables/>
<w:DontVertAlignInTxbx/>
<w:Word11KerningPairs/>
<w:CachedColBalance/>
</w:Compatibility>
<w:BrowserLevel>MicrosoftInternetExplorer4</w:BrowserLevel>
<m:mathPr>
<m:mathFont m:val="Cambria Math"/>
<m:brkBin m:val="before"/>
<m:brkBinSub m:val="--"/>
<m:smallFrac m:val="off"/>
<m:dispDef/>
<m:lMargin m:val="0"/>
<m:rMargin m:val="0"/>
<m:defJc m:val="centerGroup"/>
<m:wrapIndent m:val="1440"/>
<m:intLim m:val="subSup"/>
<m:naryLim m:val="undOvr"/>
</m:mathPr></w:WordDocument>
</xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<w:LatentStyles DefLockedState="false" DefUnhideWhenUsed="true"
DefSemiHidden="true" DefQFormat="false" DefPriority="99"
LatentStyleCount="267">
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="0" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="Normal"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="9" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="heading 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="9" QFormat="true" Name="heading 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="9" QFormat="true" Name="heading 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="9" QFormat="true" Name="heading 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="9" QFormat="true" Name="heading 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="9" QFormat="true" Name="heading 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="9" QFormat="true" Name="heading 7"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="9" QFormat="true" Name="heading 8"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="9" QFormat="true" Name="heading 9"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="39" Name="toc 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="39" Name="toc 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="39" Name="toc 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="39" Name="toc 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="39" Name="toc 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="39" Name="toc 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="39" Name="toc 7"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="39" Name="toc 8"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="39" Name="toc 9"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="35" QFormat="true" Name="caption"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="10" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="Title"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="1" Name="Default Paragraph Font"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="11" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="Subtitle"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="22" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="Strong"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="20" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="Emphasis"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="59" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Table Grid"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Placeholder Text"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="1" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="No Spacing"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="60" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Shading"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="61" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light List"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="62" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Grid"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="63" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="64" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="65" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="66" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="67" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="68" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="69" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="70" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Dark List"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="71" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Shading"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="72" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful List"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="73" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Grid"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="60" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Shading Accent 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="61" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light List Accent 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="62" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Grid Accent 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="63" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 1 Accent 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="64" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 2 Accent 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="65" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 1 Accent 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Revision"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="34" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="List Paragraph"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="29" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="Quote"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="30" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="Intense Quote"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="66" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 2 Accent 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="67" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 1 Accent 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="68" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 2 Accent 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="69" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 3 Accent 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="70" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Dark List Accent 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="71" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Shading Accent 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="72" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful List Accent 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="73" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Grid Accent 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="60" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Shading Accent 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="61" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light List Accent 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="62" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Grid Accent 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="63" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 1 Accent 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="64" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 2 Accent 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="65" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 1 Accent 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="66" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 2 Accent 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="67" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 1 Accent 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="68" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 2 Accent 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="69" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 3 Accent 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="70" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Dark List Accent 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="71" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Shading Accent 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="72" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful List Accent 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="73" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Grid Accent 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="60" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Shading Accent 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="61" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light List Accent 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="62" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Grid Accent 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="63" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 1 Accent 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="64" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 2 Accent 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="65" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 1 Accent 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="66" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 2 Accent 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="67" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 1 Accent 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="68" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 2 Accent 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="69" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 3 Accent 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="70" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Dark List Accent 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="71" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Shading Accent 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="72" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful List Accent 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="73" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Grid Accent 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="60" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Shading Accent 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="61" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light List Accent 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="62" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Grid Accent 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="63" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 1 Accent 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="64" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 2 Accent 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="65" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 1 Accent 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="66" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 2 Accent 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="67" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 1 Accent 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="68" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 2 Accent 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="69" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 3 Accent 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="70" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Dark List Accent 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="71" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Shading Accent 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="72" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful List Accent 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="73" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Grid Accent 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="60" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Shading Accent 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="61" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light List Accent 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="62" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Grid Accent 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="63" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 1 Accent 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="64" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 2 Accent 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="65" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 1 Accent 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="66" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 2 Accent 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="67" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 1 Accent 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="68" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 2 Accent 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="69" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 3 Accent 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="70" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Dark List Accent 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="71" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Shading Accent 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="72" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful List Accent 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="73" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Grid Accent 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="60" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Shading Accent 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="61" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light List Accent 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="62" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Grid Accent 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="63" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 1 Accent 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="64" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 2 Accent 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="65" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 1 Accent 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="66" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 2 Accent 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="67" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 1 Accent 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="68" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 2 Accent 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="69" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 3 Accent 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="70" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Dark List Accent 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="71" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Shading Accent 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="72" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful List Accent 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="73" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Grid Accent 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="19" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="Subtle Emphasis"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="21" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="Intense Emphasis"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="31" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="Subtle Reference"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="32" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="Intense Reference"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="33" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="Book Title"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="37" Name="Bibliography"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="39" QFormat="true" Name="TOC Heading"/>
</w:LatentStyles>
</xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 10]>
<style>
/* Style Definitions */
table.MsoNormalTable
{mso-style-name:"Table Normal";
mso-tstyle-rowband-size:0;
mso-tstyle-colband-size:0;
mso-style-noshow:yes;
mso-style-priority:99;
mso-style-qformat:yes;
mso-style-parent:"";
mso-padding-alt:0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt;
mso-para-margin-top:0in;
mso-para-margin-right:0in;
mso-para-margin-bottom:10.0pt;
mso-para-margin-left:0in;
line-height:115%;
mso-pagination:widow-orphan;
font-size:11.0pt;
font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
mso-ascii-font-family:Calibri;
mso-ascii-theme-font:minor-latin;
mso-hansi-font-family:Calibri;
mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin;
mso-bidi-font-family:"Times New Roman";
mso-bidi-theme-font:minor-bidi;}
</style>
<![endif]-->
<br />
<h4 class="MsoNoSpacing">
Much has transpired since July, 2013. </h4>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing">
UCLA did not renew
Nicole Prause’s contract (early 2015). No longer an academic Prause has <a href="https://www.yourbrainonporn.com/book/nicole-prauses-unethical-harassment-and-defamation-of-gary-wilson-others/">engaged
in multiple documented incidents harassment and defamation</a> as part of an
ongoing “astroturf” campaign to persuade people that anyone who disagrees with
her conclusions deserves to be reviled. Prause has accumulated a <a href="https://www.yourbrainonporn.com/nicole-prauses-pdf-her-span-lab-website">long
history</a> of harassing authors, researchers, therapists, reporters and others
who dare to report evidence of harms from internet porn use. She appears to be<a href="https://www.yourbrainonporn.com/relevant-research-and-articles-about-the-studies/critiques-of-questionable-debunking-propaganda-pieces/is-nicole-prause-influenced-by-the-porn-industry/">
quite cozy with the pornography industry</a>, as can be seen from this <a href="https://twitter.com/iafdcom/status/745823086818136064" target="_blank">image
of her (far right) on the red carpet of the X-Rated Critics Organization (XRCO)
awards ceremony</a>. (According to Wikipedia the <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/XRCO_Award">XRCO Awards</a> are given by
the American <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/X-Rated_Critics_Organization">X-Rated
Critics Organization</a> annually to people working in adult entertainment and
it is the only adult industry awards show reserved exclusively for industry
members.<sup><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/XRCO_Award#cite_note-1">[1]</a></sup>).
It also appears that Prause may have <a href="https://twitter.com/JRAxxx/status/959895710039715840">obtained porn
performers as subjects</a> through another porn industry interest group, the <a href="https://www.freespeechcoalition.com/" target="_blank">Free Speech
Coalition.</a> The FSC subjects were allegedly used in her hired-gun study on
the <a href="https://www.bloomberg.com/news/features/2018-06-18/the-dark-side-of-onetaste-the-orgasmic-meditation-company">heavily
tainted</a> and <a href="https://onetaste.us/courses/surrender-retreat/purchase" target="_blank">very commercial “Orgasmic Meditation” scheme</a>. Prause has
also made <a href="https://www.yourbrainonporn.com/relevant-research-and-articles-about-the-studies/critiques-of-questionable-debunking-propaganda-pieces/nicole-prauses-unethical-harassment-and-defamation-of-gary-wilson-others/#research" target="_blank">unsupported claims</a> about <a href="https://www.yourbrainonporn.com/relevant-research-and-articles-about-the-studies/porn-use-sex-addiction-studies/analysis-of-sexual-desire-not-hypersexuality-is-related-to-neurophysiological-responses-elicited-by-sexual-images-steele-et-al-2013/#1">the
results of her studies</a> and her <a href="https://www.yourbrainonporn.com/relevant-research-and-articles-about-the-studies/critiques-of-questionable-debunking-propaganda-pieces/nothing-adds-up-in-dubious-study-youthful-subjects-ed-left-unexplained-by-gabe-deem#prause">study’s
methodologies</a>. For much more documentation, see: <b><a href="https://www.yourbrainonporn.com/relevant-research-and-articles-about-the-studies/critiques-of-questionable-debunking-propaganda-pieces/is-nicole-prause-influenced-by-the-porn-industry/">Is
Nicole Prause Influenced by the Porn Industry?</a></b></div>
<br />
<ul>
</ul>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br />
<ul>
</ul>
</div>
Concerned Observershttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17481437202179154037noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6124915000554403951.post-77044352500391134032013-07-19T15:05:00.001-07:002016-08-11T21:32:04.233-07:00Concerned Observershttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17481437202179154037noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6124915000554403951.post-3081797855227353982013-07-19T15:05:00.000-07:002020-01-03T14:56:46.222-08:00SPAN Lab Touts Empty Porn Study As Ground-Breaking: Critique of Steele et al., 2013<div class="MsoNormal">
<h3>
<span style="font-family: inherit;">Findings support porn addiction model, yet <span style="font-family: inherit;">this is <span style="font-family: inherit;">misrepresented</span> by the <span style="font-family: inherit;">study's spokesperson</span></span></span></h3>
</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br />
<i>[This was first published in July, 2013 as a reply blog post to<span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span><a href="http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/the-sexual-continuum/201307/new-brain-study-questions-existence-sexual-addiction" style="text-decoration: none;" target="_blank">a "Psychology Today" blog post</a> that featured an interview with <a href="https://yourbrainonporn.com/nicole-prauses-pdf-her-span-lab-website" target="_blank">Dr. Nicole Prause</a>, co-author of the study discussed here.]</i></div>
<br />
The SPAN Lab study: "<a href="https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3960022/" target="_blank">Sexual Desire, not Hypersexuality, is Related to Neurophysiological Responses Elicited by Sexual Images</a>" (<b><i>Steele et al., </i>2013</b>)<br />
<br />
<b>THE REALLY SHORT VERSION:</b> Some years ago, David Ley and study spokesperson <a href="https://www.yourbrainonporn.com/nicole-prauses-pdf-her-span-lab-website" target="_blank" title="Nicole Prause's Unethical Harassment and Defamation of Gary Wilson & Others">Nicole Prause</a> teamed up to write a <i>Psychology Today</i> blog post about <i>Steele et al</i>., 2013 called "<a href="https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/women-who-stray/201307/your-brain-porn-its-not-addictive" target="_blank" title="Your Brain on Porn - It's NOT Addictive - david Ley"><i>Your Brain on Porn - It's NOT Addictive</i>"</a>. The blog post appeared 5 months <i>before </i>Prause's EEG study was formally published. Its oh-so-catchy title is misleading as it has nothing to do with <a href="https://www.yourbrainonporn.com/brain-scan-studies-porn-users">Your Brain on Porn</a> or the neuroscience presented there. Instead, David Ley’s March, 2013 blog post limits itself to a single flawed EEG study - <i>Steele et al</i>., 2013.<br />
<br />
David Ley is the author of <i>The Myth of Sex Addiction,</i> and he religiously denies both sex and porn addiction. Ley has written 30 or so blog posts attacking porn-recovery forums, and dismissing porn addiction and porn-induced ED. Ley & Prause not only teamed up to write Ley's <i>Psychology Today</i> blog post about <i>Steele et al</i>., 2013, they later joined forces to publish <a href="https://www.yourbrainonporn.com/emperor-has-no-clothes-fractured-fairytale-posing-review">a 2014 paper</a> dismissing porn addiction.<br />
<br />
We often see Ley's <i>Psychology Today</i> blog post referenced in
debates about porn addiction. While many cite it as their primary
evidence debunking the existence of porn addiction, few have any idea
what <i>Steele et al</i>., 2013 actually reported. If indiscriminate
Google searches is all you have, this is what you post. In reality,
Prause's 2013 EEG study actually supports the porn addiction model and
did not find what the Ley or Prause claims that it did. Eight peer-reviewed analyses of <i>Steele et al.</i> 2013 describe how the <i>Steele et al.</i> findings lend support to the porn addiction model. The papers are in accord with the YBOP critique in that we all agree that <i>Steele et al.</i> actually found the following:<br />
<ul>
<li>Frequent porn users had greater cue-reactivity (higher EEG
readings) to sexual images relative to neutral pictures (same as drug
addicts do when exposed to cues related their addiction).</li>
<li>Individuals with greater cue-reactivity to porn had <i>less </i>desire
for sex with a partner (but not lower desire to masturbate to porn).
This is a sign of both sensitization and desensitization.</li>
</ul>
Three of the papers also describe the study's flawed methodology and unsubstantiated conclusions. Paper #1 is solely devoted to <i>Steele et al.</i>, 2013. Papers 2-8 contain sections analyzing <i>Steele et al.</i>, 2013:<br />
<ol>
<li><a href="https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3975913/">Peer-reviewed critique: ‘High Desire’, or ‘Merely’ An Addiction? A Response to <i>Steele et al.</i> (2014) by Donald L. Hilton, Jr., MD.</a></li>
<li><a href="https://www.yourbrainonporn.com/relevant-research-and-articles-about-the-studies/critiques-of-questionable-debunking-propaganda-pieces/neural-correlates-of-sexual-cue-reactivity-in-individuals-with-and-without-compulsive-sexual-behaviours-2014-excerpt-analyzing-steele-et-al-2013/" title=""Neural Correlates of Sexual Cue Reactivity in Individuals with and without Compulsive Sexual Behaviours" (2014): Excerpt analyzing Steele et al., 2013">Peer-reviewed
analysis: “Neural Correlates of Sexual Cue Reactivity in Individuals
with and without Compulsive Sexual Behaviours” (2014)</a></li>
<li><a href="https://www.yourbrainonporn.com/relevant-research-and-articles-about-the-studies/critiques-of-questionable-debunking-propaganda-pieces/neuroscience-of-internet-pornography-addiction-a-review-and-update-excerpt-critiquing-steele-et-al-2013/" title=""Neuroscience of Internet Pornography Addiction: A Review and Update" - Excerpt critiquing Steele et al., 2013">Peer-reviewed critique: “Neuroscience of Internet Pornography Addiction: A Review and Update” (2015)</a></li>
<li><a href="https://www.yourbrainonporn.com/relevant-research-and-articles-about-the-studies/critiques-of-questionable-debunking-propaganda-pieces/is-internet-pornography-causing-sexual-dysfunctions-a-review-with-clinical-reports-excerpt-analyzing-steele-et-al-2013/">Peer-reviewed analysis: “Is Internet Pornography Causing Sexual Dysfunctions? A Review with Clinical Reports” (2016)</a></li>
<li><a href="https://www.yourbrainonporn.com/relevant-research-and-articles-about-the-studies/critiques-of-questionable-debunking-propaganda-pieces/conscious-and-non-conscious-measures-of-emotion-do-they-vary-with-frequency-of-pornography-use-excerpts-analyzing-steele-et-al-2013/" title=""Conscious and Non-Conscious Measures of Emotion: Do They Vary with Frequency of Pornography Use?" - Excerpts analyzing Steele et al., 2013">Peer-reviewed
analysis: “Conscious and Non-Conscious Measures of Emotion: Do They
Vary with Frequency of Pornography Use?” (2017)</a></li>
<li><a href="https://www.yourbrainonporn.com/relevant-research-and-articles-about-the-studies/critiques-of-questionable-debunking-propaganda-pieces/neurocognitive-mechanisms-in-compulsive-sexual-behavior-disorder-2018-excerpt-analyzing-steele-et-al-2013/">Peer-reviewed analysis: “Neurocognitive mechanisms in compulsive sexual behavior disorder” (2018)</a></li>
<li><a href="https://www.yourbrainonporn.com/relevant-research-and-articles-about-the-studies/critiques-of-questionable-debunking-propaganda-pieces/online-porn-addiction-what-we-know-and-what-we-dont-a-systematic-review-2019-excerpt-analyzing-steele-et-al-2013/">Peer-reviewed critique: “Online Porn Addiction: What We Know and What We Don’t—A Systematic Review” (2019)</a></li>
<li><a href="https://www.yourbrainonporn.com/relevant-research-and-articles-about-the-studies/critiques-of-questionable-debunking-propaganda-pieces/the-initiation-and-development-of-cybersex-addiction-individual-vulnerability-reinforcement-mechanism-and-neural-mechanism-2019-excerpt-analyzing-steele-et-al-2013/">Peer-reviewed
analysis: “The Initiation and Development of Cybersex Addiction:
Individual Vulnerability, Reinforcement Mechanism and Neural Mechanism”
(2019)</a> </li>
</ol>
<ol></ol>
<b>Note:</b> <a href="http://yourbrainonporn.com/node/6410">Over 25 studies falsify the claim that sex & porn addicts "just have high sexual desire".</a> This is important as Prause claimed that her subjects simply had higher libidos (but they didn't as you will see below).<br />
<br />
<u><b>Update 1: </b></u>In this 2018 presentation Gary Wilson exposes the truth behind 5 questionable and misleading studies, including this study (<i>Steele et al.,</i> 2013): <a href="https://vimeo.com/272453173">Porn Research: Fact or Fiction?</a><br />
<br />
<!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<w:WordDocument>
<w:View>Normal</w:View>
<w:Zoom>0</w:Zoom>
<w:TrackMoves/>
<w:TrackFormatting/>
<w:PunctuationKerning/>
<w:ValidateAgainstSchemas/>
<w:SaveIfXMLInvalid>false</w:SaveIfXMLInvalid>
<w:IgnoreMixedContent>false</w:IgnoreMixedContent>
<w:AlwaysShowPlaceholderText>false</w:AlwaysShowPlaceholderText>
<w:DoNotPromoteQF/>
<w:LidThemeOther>EN-US</w:LidThemeOther>
<w:LidThemeAsian>X-NONE</w:LidThemeAsian>
<w:LidThemeComplexScript>X-NONE</w:LidThemeComplexScript>
<w:Compatibility>
<w:BreakWrappedTables/>
<w:SnapToGridInCell/>
<w:WrapTextWithPunct/>
<w:UseAsianBreakRules/>
<w:DontGrowAutofit/>
<w:SplitPgBreakAndParaMark/>
<w:DontVertAlignCellWithSp/>
<w:DontBreakConstrainedForcedTables/>
<w:DontVertAlignInTxbx/>
<w:Word11KerningPairs/>
<w:CachedColBalance/>
</w:Compatibility>
<w:BrowserLevel>MicrosoftInternetExplorer4</w:BrowserLevel>
<m:mathPr>
<m:mathFont m:val="Cambria Math"/>
<m:brkBin m:val="before"/>
<m:brkBinSub m:val="--"/>
<m:smallFrac m:val="off"/>
<m:dispDef/>
<m:lMargin m:val="0"/>
<m:rMargin m:val="0"/>
<m:defJc m:val="centerGroup"/>
<m:wrapIndent m:val="1440"/>
<m:intLim m:val="subSup"/>
<m:naryLim m:val="undOvr"/>
</m:mathPr></w:WordDocument>
</xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<w:LatentStyles DefLockedState="false" DefUnhideWhenUsed="true"
DefSemiHidden="true" DefQFormat="false" DefPriority="99"
LatentStyleCount="267">
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="0" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="Normal"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="9" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="heading 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="9" QFormat="true" Name="heading 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="9" QFormat="true" Name="heading 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="9" QFormat="true" Name="heading 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="9" QFormat="true" Name="heading 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="9" QFormat="true" Name="heading 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="9" QFormat="true" Name="heading 7"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="9" QFormat="true" Name="heading 8"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="9" QFormat="true" Name="heading 9"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="39" Name="toc 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="39" Name="toc 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="39" Name="toc 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="39" Name="toc 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="39" Name="toc 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="39" Name="toc 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="39" Name="toc 7"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="39" Name="toc 8"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="39" Name="toc 9"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="35" QFormat="true" Name="caption"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="10" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="Title"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="1" Name="Default Paragraph Font"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="11" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="Subtitle"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="22" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="Strong"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="20" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="Emphasis"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="59" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Table Grid"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Placeholder Text"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="1" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="No Spacing"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="60" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Shading"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="61" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light List"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="62" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Grid"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="63" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="64" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="65" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="66" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="67" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="68" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="69" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="70" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Dark List"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="71" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Shading"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="72" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful List"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="73" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Grid"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="60" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Shading Accent 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="61" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light List Accent 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="62" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Grid Accent 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="63" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 1 Accent 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="64" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 2 Accent 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="65" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 1 Accent 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Revision"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="34" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="List Paragraph"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="29" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="Quote"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="30" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="Intense Quote"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="66" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 2 Accent 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="67" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 1 Accent 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="68" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 2 Accent 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="69" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 3 Accent 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="70" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Dark List Accent 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="71" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Shading Accent 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="72" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful List Accent 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="73" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Grid Accent 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="60" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Shading Accent 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="61" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light List Accent 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="62" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Grid Accent 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="63" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 1 Accent 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="64" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 2 Accent 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="65" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 1 Accent 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="66" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 2 Accent 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="67" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 1 Accent 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="68" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 2 Accent 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="69" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 3 Accent 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="70" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Dark List Accent 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="71" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Shading Accent 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="72" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful List Accent 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="73" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Grid Accent 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="60" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Shading Accent 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="61" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light List Accent 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="62" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Grid Accent 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="63" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 1 Accent 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="64" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 2 Accent 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="65" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 1 Accent 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="66" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 2 Accent 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="67" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 1 Accent 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="68" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 2 Accent 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="69" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 3 Accent 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="70" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Dark List Accent 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="71" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Shading Accent 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="72" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful List Accent 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="73" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Grid Accent 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="60" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Shading Accent 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="61" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light List Accent 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="62" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Grid Accent 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="63" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 1 Accent 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="64" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 2 Accent 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="65" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 1 Accent 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="66" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 2 Accent 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="67" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 1 Accent 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="68" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 2 Accent 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="69" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 3 Accent 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="70" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Dark List Accent 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="71" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Shading Accent 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="72" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful List Accent 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="73" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Grid Accent 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="60" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Shading Accent 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="61" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light List Accent 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="62" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Grid Accent 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="63" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 1 Accent 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="64" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 2 Accent 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="65" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 1 Accent 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="66" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 2 Accent 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="67" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 1 Accent 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="68" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 2 Accent 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="69" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 3 Accent 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="70" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Dark List Accent 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="71" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Shading Accent 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="72" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful List Accent 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="73" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Grid Accent 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="60" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Shading Accent 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="61" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light List Accent 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="62" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Grid Accent 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="63" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 1 Accent 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="64" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 2 Accent 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="65" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 1 Accent 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="66" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 2 Accent 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="67" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 1 Accent 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="68" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 2 Accent 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="69" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 3 Accent 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="70" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Dark List Accent 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="71" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Shading Accent 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="72" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful List Accent 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="73" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Grid Accent 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="19" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="Subtle Emphasis"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="21" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="Intense Emphasis"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="31" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="Subtle Reference"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="32" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="Intense Reference"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="33" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="Book Title"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="37" Name="Bibliography"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="39" QFormat="true" Name="TOC Heading"/>
</w:LatentStyles>
</xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 10]>
<style>
/* Style Definitions */
table.MsoNormalTable
{mso-style-name:"Table Normal";
mso-tstyle-rowband-size:0;
mso-tstyle-colband-size:0;
mso-style-noshow:yes;
mso-style-priority:99;
mso-style-qformat:yes;
mso-style-parent:"";
mso-padding-alt:0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt;
mso-para-margin-top:0in;
mso-para-margin-right:0in;
mso-para-margin-bottom:10.0pt;
mso-para-margin-left:0in;
line-height:115%;
mso-pagination:widow-orphan;
font-size:11.0pt;
font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
mso-ascii-font-family:Calibri;
mso-ascii-theme-font:minor-latin;
mso-hansi-font-family:Calibri;
mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin;
mso-bidi-font-family:"Times New Roman";
mso-bidi-theme-font:minor-bidi;}
</style>
<![endif]-->
<br />
<div class="MsoNoSpacing">
<u><b>Update 2 (2019):</b></u> Much has transpired since July, 2013. UCLA did not renew
Nicole Prause’s contract (early 2015). No longer an academic Prause has <a href="https://www.yourbrainonporn.com/book/nicole-prauses-unethical-harassment-and-defamation-of-gary-wilson-others/">engaged
in multiple documented incidents harassment and defamation</a> as part of an
ongoing “astroturf” campaign to persuade people that anyone who disagrees with
her conclusions deserves to be reviled. Prause has accumulated a <a href="https://www.yourbrainonporn.com/nicole-prauses-pdf-her-span-lab-website">long
history</a> of harassing authors, researchers, therapists, reporters and others
who dare to report evidence of harms from internet porn use. She appears to be<a href="https://www.yourbrainonporn.com/relevant-research-and-articles-about-the-studies/critiques-of-questionable-debunking-propaganda-pieces/is-nicole-prause-influenced-by-the-porn-industry/">
quite cozy with the pornography industry</a>, as can be seen from this <a href="https://twitter.com/iafdcom/status/745823086818136064" target="_blank">image
of her (far right) on the red carpet of the X-Rated Critics Organization (XRCO)
awards ceremony</a>. (According to Wikipedia the <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/XRCO_Award">XRCO Awards</a> are given by
the American <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/X-Rated_Critics_Organization">X-Rated
Critics Organization</a> annually to people working in adult entertainment and
it is the only adult industry awards show reserved exclusively for industry
members.<sup><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/XRCO_Award#cite_note-1">[1]</a></sup>).
It also appears that Prause may have <a href="https://twitter.com/JRAxxx/status/959895710039715840">obtained porn
performers as subjects</a> through another porn industry interest group, the <a href="https://www.freespeechcoalition.com/" target="_blank">Free Speech
Coalition.</a> The FSC subjects were allegedly used in her hired-gun study on
the <a href="https://www.bloomberg.com/news/features/2018-06-18/the-dark-side-of-onetaste-the-orgasmic-meditation-company">heavily
tainted</a> and <a href="https://onetaste.us/courses/surrender-retreat/purchase" target="_blank">very commercial “Orgasmic Meditation” scheme</a>. Prause has
also made <a href="https://www.yourbrainonporn.com/relevant-research-and-articles-about-the-studies/critiques-of-questionable-debunking-propaganda-pieces/nicole-prauses-unethical-harassment-and-defamation-of-gary-wilson-others/#research" target="_blank">unsupported claims</a> about <a href="https://www.yourbrainonporn.com/relevant-research-and-articles-about-the-studies/porn-use-sex-addiction-studies/analysis-of-sexual-desire-not-hypersexuality-is-related-to-neurophysiological-responses-elicited-by-sexual-images-steele-et-al-2013/#1">the
results of her studies</a> and her <a href="https://www.yourbrainonporn.com/relevant-research-and-articles-about-the-studies/critiques-of-questionable-debunking-propaganda-pieces/nothing-adds-up-in-dubious-study-youthful-subjects-ed-left-unexplained-by-gabe-deem#prause">study’s
methodologies</a>. For much more documentation, see: <b><a href="https://www.yourbrainonporn.com/relevant-research-and-articles-about-the-studies/critiques-of-questionable-debunking-propaganda-pieces/is-nicole-prause-influenced-by-the-porn-industry/">Is
Nicole Prause Influenced by the Porn Industry?</a></b></div>
<br />
<ul>
</ul>
<ul>
</ul>
<hr />
<h2>
</h2>
<h2>
THE SHORT VERSION</h2>
Spokesperson Nicole Prause presented the following arguments to support the claim that "porn addiction does not exist":<br />
<ol>
<li>In <a href="http://losangeles.cbslocal.com/2013/07/18/ucla-study-suggests-sexual-addiction-isnt-a-real-disorder/" target="_blank">TV interviews</a> and in the <a href="http://newsroom.ucla.edu/releases/is-sexual-addiction-the-real-deal-247423" target="_blank">UCLA press release</a> researcher Nicole Prause claims that subjects' brains did not respond like other addicts.</li>
<li>The headlines and the study's conclusion suggest that "hypersexuality" is understood as "<b>high desire</b>", yet the study reports that subjects with greater brain activation to porn have <b>less desire</b> for sex. </li>
<li>Prause argues that the<i> lack of correlations</i> between EEG readings and certain questionnaires means porn addiction doesn't exist.</li>
</ol>
You can read the whole analysis, but here's the scoop on 1, 2 and 3 above.<br />
<h3>
<b> </b></h3>
<h3>
<b>CLAIM NUMBER 1: </b>Subjects' brain response differs from other types of addicts (cocaine was the example).</h3>
Much of the hype and headlines surrounding this study rest upon this unsupported claim. Here's the hype:<br />
<br />
<a href="http://newsroom.ucla.edu/releases/is-sexual-addiction-the-real-deal-247423" target="_blank"><b>Press release</b>:</a><br />
<blockquote>
"If they indeed suffer from hypersexuality, or sexual
addiction, their brain response to visual sexual stimuli could be
expected be higher, in much the same way that the brains of cocaine
addicts have been shown to react to images of the drug in other
studies."</blockquote>
<a href="http://losangeles.cbslocal.com/2013/07/18/ucla-study-suggests-sexual-addiction-isnt-a-real-disorder/" target="_blank"><b>TV interview:</b></a><br />
<blockquote>
<div>
<b>Reporter:</b> "They were shown various erotic images, and their brain activity monitored."</div>
<div>
</div>
<div>
<b></b></div>
</blockquote>
<blockquote>
<div>
<b>Prause</b>: "If you think sexual problems are an
addiction, we would have expected to see an enhanced response, maybe, to
those sexual images. If you think it's a problem of impulsivity, we
would have expected to see decreased responses to those sexual images.
And the fact that we didn't see any of those relationships suggests that
there's not great support for looking at these problem sexual behaviors
as an addiction."</div>
</blockquote>
<div>
<b><a href="http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/the-sexual-continuum/201307/new-brain-study-questions-existence-sexual-addiction" target="_blank"><i>Psychology Today</i> interview</a>:</b><br />
<blockquote>
<b>What was the purpose of the study?</b><br />
<b></b></blockquote>
<blockquote>
<b>Prause</b>: Our study tested whether people who report
such problems look like other addicts from their brain responses to
sexual images. Studies of drug addictions, such as cocaine, have shown a
consistent pattern of brain response to images of the drug of abuse, so
we predicted that we should see the same pattern in people who report
problems with sex if it was, in fact, an addiction.<br />
<b></b></blockquote>
<blockquote>
<b>Does this prove sex addiction is a myth?</b></blockquote>
<blockquote>
<b>Prause</b>: If our study is replicated, these findings would represent a major
challenge to existing theories of sex “addiction”. The reason these
findings present a challenge is that it shows their brains did not
respond to the images like other addicts to their drug of addiction.</blockquote>
</div>
The above claims that subjects brains did not "respond like other addicts is without support. In this study, subjects had higher EEG (P300)
readings when viewing sexual images - which is exactly what occurs when
addicts view images related to their addiction (as in <a href="http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2772167/" target="_blank">this study on cocaine addicts</a>). Commenting under the <a href="http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/the-sexual-continuum/201307/new-brain-study-questions-existence-sexual-addiction" target="_blank"><i>Psychology Today </i>interview </a>of Prause, <a href="http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/the-sexual-continuum/201307/new-brain-study-questions-existence-sexual-addiction/comments#comment-556448" target="_blank">senior psychology professor emeritus John A. Johnson said</a>:<br />
<blockquote>
<b>"My mind still boggles at the Prause claim that her
subjects' brains did not respond to sexual images like drug addicts'
brains respond to their drug</b>, given that she reports higher P300
readings for the sexual images. Just like addicts who show P300 spikes
when presented with their drug of choice. <b>How could she draw a
conclusion that is the opposite of the actual results?</b> I think it could
be due to her preconceptions--what she expected to find."</blockquote>
<a href="http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/the-sexual-continuum/201307/new-brain-study-questions-existence-sexual-addiction/comments#comment-542939">John Johnson continues</a>:<br />
<blockquote>
Mustanski asks, "What was the purpose of the study?" And
Prause replies, "Our study tested whether people who report such
problems [problems with regulating their viewing of online erotica] look
like other addicts from their brain responses to sexual images."<br />
<b>But the study did not compare brain recordings from persons having
problems regulating their viewing of online erotica to brain recordings
from drug addicts and brain recordings from a non-addict control group,
which would have been the obvious way to see if brain responses from the
troubled group look more like the brain responses of addicts or
non-addicts.</b></blockquote>
<blockquote>
Instead, Prause claims that their within-subject design was a better
method, where research subjects serve as their own control group. With
this design, they found that the EEG response of their subjects (as a
group) to erotic pictures was stronger than their EEG responses to other
kinds of pictures. This is shown in the inline waveform graph (although
for some reason the graph differs considerably from the actual graph in
the published article).</blockquote>
<blockquote>
<b>So this group who reports having trouble regulating their
viewing of online erotica has a stronger EEG response to erotic
pictures than other kinds of pictures.</b> Do addicts show a similarly
strong EEG response when presented with their drug of choice? We don't
know. Do normal, non-addicts show a response as strong as the troubled
group to erotica? Again, we do not know. <b>We don't know whether this EEG
pattern is more similar to the brain patterns of addicts or non-addicts.</b></blockquote>
<blockquote>
The Prause research team claims to be able to demonstrate whether the
elevated EEG response of their subjects to erotica is an addictive
brain response or just a high-libido brain response by correlating a set
of questionnaire scores with individual differences in EEG response.
But explaining differences in EEG response is a different question from
exploring whether the overall group's response looks addictive or not.</blockquote>
<b>Simple:</b> The claims that the subjects' brains differed from other types of addicts is without support. In fact, the 2014 <a href="http://tinyurl.com/m5fono5" target="_blank">Cambridge University study</a> (<i>Voon et al.</i> 2014) analyzed <i>Steele et al.</i> and agreed with Johnson: <i>Steele et al.</i>
reported higher P300 in response to sexual images relative to neutral pictures (<b>citation 25</b>). From the Cambridge study:<br />
<blockquote>
"Our findings suggest dACC activity reflects the role of
sexual desire, which may have similarities to a study on the P300 in CSB
subjects correlating with desire <b>[25]</b> ......Studies of
the P300, an event related potential used to study attentional bias in
substance use disorders, show elevated measures with respect to use of
nicotine [54], alcohol [55], and opiates [56], with measures often
correlating with craving indices.".....Thus, both dACC activity in the
present CSB study and P300 activity reported in a previous CSB study may
reflect similar underlying processes."</blockquote>
<!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<w:WordDocument>
<w:View>Normal</w:View>
<w:Zoom>0</w:Zoom>
<w:TrackMoves/>
<w:TrackFormatting/>
<w:PunctuationKerning/>
<w:ValidateAgainstSchemas/>
<w:SaveIfXMLInvalid>false</w:SaveIfXMLInvalid>
<w:IgnoreMixedContent>false</w:IgnoreMixedContent>
<w:AlwaysShowPlaceholderText>false</w:AlwaysShowPlaceholderText>
<w:DoNotPromoteQF/>
<w:LidThemeOther>EN-US</w:LidThemeOther>
<w:LidThemeAsian>X-NONE</w:LidThemeAsian>
<w:LidThemeComplexScript>X-NONE</w:LidThemeComplexScript>
<w:Compatibility>
<w:BreakWrappedTables/>
<w:SnapToGridInCell/>
<w:WrapTextWithPunct/>
<w:UseAsianBreakRules/>
<w:DontGrowAutofit/>
<w:SplitPgBreakAndParaMark/>
<w:DontVertAlignCellWithSp/>
<w:DontBreakConstrainedForcedTables/>
<w:DontVertAlignInTxbx/>
<w:Word11KerningPairs/>
<w:CachedColBalance/>
</w:Compatibility>
<m:mathPr>
<m:mathFont m:val="Cambria Math"/>
<m:brkBin m:val="before"/>
<m:brkBinSub m:val="--"/>
<m:smallFrac m:val="off"/>
<m:dispDef/>
<m:lMargin m:val="0"/>
<m:rMargin m:val="0"/>
<m:defJc m:val="centerGroup"/>
<m:wrapIndent m:val="1440"/>
<m:intLim m:val="subSup"/>
<m:naryLim m:val="undOvr"/>
</m:mathPr></w:WordDocument>
</xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<w:LatentStyles DefLockedState="false" DefUnhideWhenUsed="true"
DefSemiHidden="true" DefQFormat="false" DefPriority="99"
LatentStyleCount="267">
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="0" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="Normal"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="9" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="heading 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="9" QFormat="true" Name="heading 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="9" QFormat="true" Name="heading 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="9" QFormat="true" Name="heading 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="9" QFormat="true" Name="heading 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="9" QFormat="true" Name="heading 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="9" QFormat="true" Name="heading 7"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="9" QFormat="true" Name="heading 8"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="9" QFormat="true" Name="heading 9"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="39" Name="toc 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="39" Name="toc 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="39" Name="toc 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="39" Name="toc 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="39" Name="toc 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="39" Name="toc 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="39" Name="toc 7"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="39" Name="toc 8"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="39" Name="toc 9"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="35" QFormat="true" Name="caption"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="10" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="Title"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="1" Name="Default Paragraph Font"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="11" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="Subtitle"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="22" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="Strong"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="20" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="Emphasis"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="59" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Table Grid"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Placeholder Text"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="1" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="No Spacing"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="60" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Shading"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="61" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light List"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="62" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Grid"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="63" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="64" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="65" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="66" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="67" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="68" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="69" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="70" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Dark List"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="71" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Shading"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="72" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful List"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="73" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Grid"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="60" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Shading Accent 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="61" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light List Accent 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="62" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Grid Accent 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="63" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 1 Accent 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="64" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 2 Accent 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="65" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 1 Accent 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Revision"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="34" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="List Paragraph"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="29" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="Quote"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="30" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="Intense Quote"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="66" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 2 Accent 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="67" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 1 Accent 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="68" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 2 Accent 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="69" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 3 Accent 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="70" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Dark List Accent 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="71" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Shading Accent 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="72" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful List Accent 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="73" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Grid Accent 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="60" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Shading Accent 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="61" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light List Accent 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="62" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Grid Accent 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="63" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 1 Accent 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="64" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 2 Accent 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="65" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 1 Accent 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="66" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 2 Accent 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="67" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 1 Accent 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="68" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 2 Accent 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="69" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 3 Accent 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="70" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Dark List Accent 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="71" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Shading Accent 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="72" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful List Accent 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="73" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Grid Accent 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="60" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Shading Accent 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="61" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light List Accent 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="62" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Grid Accent 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="63" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 1 Accent 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="64" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 2 Accent 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="65" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 1 Accent 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="66" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 2 Accent 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="67" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 1 Accent 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="68" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 2 Accent 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="69" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 3 Accent 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="70" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Dark List Accent 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="71" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Shading Accent 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="72" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful List Accent 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="73" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Grid Accent 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="60" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Shading Accent 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="61" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light List Accent 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="62" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Grid Accent 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="63" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 1 Accent 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="64" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 2 Accent 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="65" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 1 Accent 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="66" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 2 Accent 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="67" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 1 Accent 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="68" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 2 Accent 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="69" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 3 Accent 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="70" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Dark List Accent 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="71" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Shading Accent 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="72" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful List Accent 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="73" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Grid Accent 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="60" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Shading Accent 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="61" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light List Accent 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="62" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Grid Accent 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="63" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 1 Accent 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="64" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 2 Accent 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="65" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 1 Accent 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="66" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 2 Accent 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="67" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 1 Accent 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="68" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 2 Accent 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="69" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 3 Accent 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="70" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Dark List Accent 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="71" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Shading Accent 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="72" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful List Accent 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="73" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Grid Accent 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="60" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Shading Accent 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="61" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light List Accent 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="62" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Grid Accent 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="63" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 1 Accent 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="64" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 2 Accent 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="65" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 1 Accent 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="66" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 2 Accent 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="67" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 1 Accent 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="68" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 2 Accent 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="69" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 3 Accent 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="70" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Dark List Accent 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="71" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Shading Accent 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="72" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful List Accent 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="73" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Grid Accent 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="19" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="Subtle Emphasis"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="21" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="Intense Emphasis"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="31" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="Subtle Reference"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="32" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="Intense Reference"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="33" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="Book Title"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="37" Name="Bibliography"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="39" QFormat="true" Name="TOC Heading"/>
</w:LatentStyles>
</xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 10]>
<style>
/* Style Definitions */
table.MsoNormalTable
{mso-style-name:"Table Normal";
mso-tstyle-rowband-size:0;
mso-tstyle-colband-size:0;
mso-style-noshow:yes;
mso-style-priority:99;
mso-style-qformat:yes;
mso-style-parent:"";
mso-padding-alt:0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt;
mso-para-margin-top:0in;
mso-para-margin-right:0in;
mso-para-margin-bottom:10.0pt;
mso-para-margin-left:0in;
line-height:115%;
mso-pagination:widow-orphan;
font-size:11.0pt;
font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
mso-ascii-font-family:Calibri;
mso-ascii-theme-font:minor-latin;
mso-hansi-font-family:Calibri;
mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin;}
</style>
<![endif]--><span style="font-weight: normal;"><span style="font-family: "arial" , "sans-serif"; font-size: 12.0pt;">This <a href="http://www.mdpi.com/2076-328X/5/3/388/htm" target="_blank">2015 review the neuroscience literature</a> summarized <i>Steele et al.</i>: </span></span><br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<span style="font-weight: normal;"><span style="font-family: "arial" , "sans-serif"; font-size: 12.0pt;">"So
while these authors [</span><span style="font-family: "arial" , "sans-serif"; font-size: 12.0pt;"><a href="http://www.mdpi.com/2076-328X/5/3/388/htm#B303-behavsci-05-00388"><span style="mso-bidi-font-family: Arial;">303</span></a></span><span style="font-family: "arial" , "sans-serif"; font-size: 12.0pt;">] claimed that their study refuted the
application of the addiction model to CSB, Voon <span class="html-italic">et al</span>.
posited that these authors actually provided evidence supporting said model."</span></span></blockquote>
<br />
<h3>
<b>CLAIM NUMBER 2: </b>The headlines & conclusion suggest that "hypersexuality" is understood as "<b>high desire</b>", yet the study reports that subjects with greater brain activation to porn have <b>less desire</b> for sex. </h3>
What you didn't read in interviews and articles is that the study reported a <b><i>negative correlation</i></b> between "partnered sexual desire questions" and P300 readings. In other words, greater brain activation correlated with <i><b>less desire</b></i> for sex (but not less desire to masturbate to porn). Note Prause's wording <a href="http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/the-sexual-continuum/201307/new-brain-study-questions-existence-sexual-addiction" target="_blank">in this interview</a>:<br />
<ol></ol>
<blockquote>
<b>What is the main finding in your study?</b></blockquote>
<blockquote>
"We found that the brain’s response to sexual pictures was not
predicted by any of three different questionnaire measures of
hypersexuality. <b>Brain response was only predicted by a measure of sexual desire.</b>
In other words, hypersexuality does not appear to explain brain
differences in sexual response any more than just having a high libido."</blockquote>
Note that Prause said by "<b>a measure</b>" of sexual desire, not by
"the entire Sexual Desire Inventory". When all 14 questions were
calculated there was no correlation, and no headline. Even more
confusing is the study title which used <i>"sexual desire"</i>, rather than what was actually found: "<i>negative correlation with selected questions about partnered sex from the SDI</i>", <i>but no correlation when all SDI questions were calculated</i>".<br />
<br />
Here's <a href="http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/the-sexual-continuum/201307/new-brain-study-questions-existence-sexual-addiction/comments#comment-542939" target="_blank">John Johnson PhD commenting</a> under the Prause interview:<br />
<blockquote>
"The Prause group reported that the only statistically
significant correlation with the EEG response was a negative correlation
(r=-.33) with desire for sex with a partner. <b>In other words, there was a
slight tendency for subjects with strong EEG responses to erotica to
have lower desire for sex with a partner.</b> <b>How does that say anything
about whether the brain responses of people who have trouble regulating
their viewing of erotica are similar to addicts or non-addicts with a
high libido?</b>"</blockquote>
<b>Simple: </b>No correlation existed between EEG readings and the 14-question sexual
desire inventory. Goodbye study title and headlines. Even if a positive
correlation existed, the claim that "high desire" is mutually exclusive
from "addiction" is preposterous. <b>More to the point, P300 readings were <i>negatively</i> correlated (r=-.33) with desire for sex with a partner. Put simply<b>, </b></b><b>subjects who had greater cue-reactivity to porn had less desire for sex with a real person.</b> <br />
<h3>
<b> </b></h3>
<h3>
<b>CLAIM NUMBER 3:</b> Porn addiction doesn't exist
because of a lack of correlation between subjects' EEG readings and
subjects' scores on the Sexual Compulsivity Scale.</h3>
<h3>
</h3>
<h3>
</h3>
<h3>
</h3>
<b>The<i> lack of correlations</i> between EEG and questionnaires is easily explained by many factors:</b><br />
<br />
<b>1)</b> The subjects were <a href="http://www.researchgate.net/publication/260248374_Table_1_Demographics_with_sexual_orientation" target="_blank" title="able 1 Demographics with sexual orientation">men and women, including 7 non-heterosexuals</a>, but were all shown standard, possibly uninteresting, male+female images. This alone discounts any findings. Why?<br />
<ul>
<li>Study after study confirm that men and women have significantly different brain responses to sexual images or films.</li>
<li>Valid addiction brain studies involve homogenous subjects: same sex, same sexual orientation, along with similar ages and IQ's.</li>
<li>How can researchers justify non-heterosexuals in an experiment with
only heterosexual porn - and then draw vast conclusions from a
(predictable) lack of correlation?</li>
</ul>
<b>2) </b>The subjects were not pre-screened. Valid
addiction brain studies screen individuals for pre-existing
conditions (depression, OCD, other addictions, etc.). See the <a href="http://www.yourbrainonporn.com/cambridge-university-brain-scans-find-porn-addiction" target="_blank">Cambridge study </a>for an example of proper screening & methodology.<br />
<br />
<b>3)</b> Subjects experienced varying degrees of compulsive porn use, from severe to relatively minor. A quote from Prause:<br />
<blockquote>
"This study only included people who reported problems,
ranging from relatively minor to overwhelming problems, controlling
their viewing of visual sexual stimuli."</blockquote>
<ul>
</ul>
This alone could explain varying results that didn't correlate
in a predictable way. Valid addiction brain studies compare a group of
addicts to non-addicts. This study had neither.<br />
<ul>
</ul>
<b>4)</b> The SCS (Sexual Compulsivity Scale) isn't a
valid assessment test for Internet-porn addiction or for women. It was
created in 1995 and designed with uncontrolled sexual <i>relations</i> in mind (in connection with investigating the AIDS epidemic). The <a href="http://personality-testing.info/tests/SCS.php" target="_blank" title="Sexual Compulsivity Scale">SCS says</a>:<br />
<blockquote>
"The scale has been should [shown?] to predict rates of
sexual behaviors, numbers of sexual partners, practice of a variety of
sexual behaviors, and histories of sexually transmitted diseases."</blockquote>
Moreover, the SCS's developer warns that this tool won't show psychopathology in women,<br />
<blockquote>
"Associations between sexual compulsivity scores and
other markers of psychopathology showed different patterns for men and
women; sexual compulsivity was associated with indexes of
psychopathology in men but not in women."</blockquote>
<b>Simple: </b>A valid addiction "brain study" must: 1) have
homogenous subjects and controls, 2) screen for other mental disorders
and addictions, 3) use validated questionnaires and interviews to assure
the subjects are actually addicts. This EEG study on porn users did
none of these. This alone discounts SPAN Lab's results.<br />
<br />
<h3>
Analysis of Steele et al. from this peer-reviewed review of the literature - <b><a href="http://www.mdpi.com/2076-328X/5/3/388/htm"><i>Neuroscience of Internet Pornography Addiction: A Review and Update</i> (2015) </a></b></h3>
<h3>
</h3>
An EEG study on those complaining of problems regulating their
viewing of internet pornography has reported the neural reactivity to
sexual stimuli [<a href="http://www.mdpi.com/2076-328X/5/3/388/htm#B303-behavsci-05-00388" title="">303</a>].
The study was designed to examine the relationship between ERP
amplitudes when viewing emotional and sexual images and questionnaire
measures of hypersexuality and sexual desire. The authors concluded that
the absence of correlations between scores on hypersexuality
questionnaires and mean P300 amplitudes when viewing sexual images “fail
to provide support for models of pathological hypersexuality” [<a href="http://www.mdpi.com/2076-328X/5/3/388/htm#B303-behavsci-05-00388" title="">303</a>]
(p. 10). However, the lack of correlations may be better explained by
arguable flaws in the methodology. For example, this study used a
heterogeneous subject pool (males and females, including 7
non-heterosexuals).<br />
<br />
Cue-reactivity studies comparing the brain response
of addicts to healthy controls require homogenous subjects (same sex,
similar ages) to have valid results. Specific to porn addiction studies,
it’s well established that males and females differ appreciably in
brain and autonomic responses to the identical visual sexual stimuli [<a href="http://www.mdpi.com/2076-328X/5/3/388/htm#B304-behavsci-05-00388" title="">304</a>,<a href="http://www.mdpi.com/2076-328X/5/3/388/htm#B305-behavsci-05-00388" title="">305</a>,<a href="http://www.mdpi.com/2076-328X/5/3/388/htm#B306-behavsci-05-00388" title="">306</a>].
Additionally, two of the screening questionnaires have not been
validated for addicted IP users, and the subjects were not screened for
other manifestations of addiction or mood disorders.<br />
<br />
Moreover, the conclusion listed in the abstract, “Implications for
understanding hypersexuality as high desire, rather than disordered, are
discussed” [<a href="http://www.mdpi.com/2076-328X/5/3/388/htm#B303-behavsci-05-00388" title="">303</a>]
(p. 1) seems out of place considering the study’s finding that P300
amplitude was negatively correlated with desire for sex with a partner.
As explained in Hilton (2014), this finding “directly contradicts the
interpretation of P300 as high desire” [<a href="http://www.mdpi.com/2076-328X/5/3/388/htm#B307-behavsci-05-00388" title="">307</a>].
The Hilton analysis further suggests that the absence of a control
group and the inability of EEG technology to discriminate between “high
sexual desire” and “sexual compulsion” render the Steele et al. findings
uninterpretable [<a href="http://www.mdpi.com/2076-328X/5/3/388/htm#B307-behavsci-05-00388" title="">307</a>].<br />
<br />
Finally, a significant finding of the paper (higher P300 amplitude to
sexual images, relative to neutral pictures) is given minimal attention
in the discussion section. This is unexpected, as a common finding with
substance and internet addicts is an increased P300 amplitude relative
to neutral stimuli when exposed to visual cues associated with their
addiction [<a href="http://www.mdpi.com/2076-328X/5/3/388/htm#B308-behavsci-05-00388" title="">308</a>]. In fact, Voon, et al. [<a href="http://www.mdpi.com/2076-328X/5/3/388/htm#B262-behavsci-05-00388" title="">262</a>]
devoted a section of their discussion analyzing this prior study’s P300
findings. Voon et al. provided the explanation of importance of P300
not provided in the Steele paper, particularly in regards to established
addiction models, concluding,<br />
<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<div style="margin-left: .5in;">
<i>Thus, both dACC activity in the present CSB study and P300 activity reported in a previous CSB study[<a href="http://www.mdpi.com/2076-328X/5/3/388/htm#B303-behavsci-05-00388" title="">303</a>]
may reflect similar underlying processes of attentional capture.
Similarly, both studies show a correlation between these measures with
enhanced desire. Here we suggest that dACC activity correlates with
desire, which may reflect an index of craving, but does not correlate
with liking suggestive of on an incentive-salience model of addictions. [<a href="http://www.mdpi.com/2076-328X/5/3/388/htm#B262-behavsci-05-00388" title="">262</a>] (p. 7)</i></div>
</blockquote>
<div style="margin-left: .5in;">
<br /></div>
So while these authors [<a href="http://www.mdpi.com/2076-328X/5/3/388/htm#B303-behavsci-05-00388" title="">303</a>]
claimed that their study refuted the application of the addiction model
to CSB, Voon et al. posited that these authors actually provided
evidence supporting said model.<br />
<br />
<h2>
THE LONG VERSION</h2>
<h3>
</h3>
<h3>
The Results Say One thing, While the Study's Conclusions & Authors Imply the Opposite</h3>
<h3>
</h3>
The study's title, along with the many headlines, state that a
correlation (relation) was found between "sexual desire" as measured by
the <a href="http://www.reuniting.info/download/pdf/sdi-2.pdf" target="_blank">Sexual Desire Inventory</a> and EEG readings. According to everything we can find, the SDI is a <a href="http://www.reuniting.info/download/pdf/sdi-2.pdf">14-question test</a>.
Nine of its questions address partnered ("dyadic") sexual desire and
four address solo ("solitary") sexual desire. Just for clarification,
the study's <i>negative</i> correlation was attained with only the <i>partnered</i> sex questions from the SDI. There was no significant correlation between P300 readings and <i><b>all </b></i>the questions on the SDI. The study's results taken from the abstract:<br />
<blockquote>
<b>RESULTS</b>: "Larger P300 amplitude differences to pleasant sexual stimuli, relative to neutral stimuli, <b>was negatively related to measures of sexual desire</b>, but not related to measures of hypersexuality."</blockquote>
Translation: Subjects with greater cue-reactivity to porn (higher
EEG's) scored lower in their desire for sex with a partner (but not
their desire to masturbate). To put it another way, <i><b>greater cue-reactivity</b></i> correlated with <b><i>less desire to have sex </i></b>(yet still desiring to masturbate to porn). Yet the very next sentence turns <i>lower desire for sex</i> with a partner into <i>high</i> <i>sexual desire</i>:<br />
<blockquote>
<b>CONCLUSION</b>: Implications for<b> understanding hypersexuality</b> <b>as high desire</b>, rather than disordered, are discussed.</blockquote>
Is Steele et al now claiming that they really found <i>high sexual desire</i> correlating with <i>higher P300 readings</i>? Well, that didn't happen, as John Johnson PhD explained in <a data-cke-saved-href="http://tinyurl.com/q54dv6y" href="http://tinyurl.com/q54dv6y">this peer-reviewed rebuttal</a>:<br />
<blockquote>
‘The single statistically significant finding says nothing about addiction. Furthermore, this significant finding is a <b>negative correlation between P300 and desire for sex with a partner</b> (r=−0.33), <b>indicating
that P300 amplitude is related to lower sexual desire; this directly
contradicts the interpretation of P300 as high desire</b>. There
are no comparisons to other addict groups. There are no comparisons to
control groups. The conclusions drawn by the researchers are a quantum
leap from the data, which say nothing about whether people who report
trouble regulating their viewing of sexual images have or do not have
brain responses similar to cocaine or any other kinds of addicts’</blockquote>
Why must John Johnson remind the authors and everyone else, that Steel et al. actually found "lower desire for sex with a partner", rather than
"high sexual desire"? Because most of Steele et al and the media blitz imply that cue-reactivity to porn correlated with high sexual desire.
The conclusion taken from the abstract:<br />
<blockquote>
<i><b>Conclusion</b></i>: Implications for understanding hypersexuality as high desire, rather than disordered, are discussed.</blockquote>
Say what? But study reported that subjects with greater cue-reactivity had <b>lower desire for sex with a partner</b>.<br />
<br />
In addition, the phrase "sexual desire" is repeated 63
times in the study, and the study's title (Sexual Desire, Not
Hypersexuality....) implies that higher brain activation to cues was
associated with higher sexual desire. Read the study's <i>full </i>conclusion and you too might assume Steele et al. found higher rather than lower sexual desire:<br />
<blockquote>
In conclusion, the first measures of neural reactivity to
visual sexual and non-sexual stimuli in a sample reporting problems
regulating their viewing of similar stimuli fail to provide support for
models of pathological hypersexuality, as measured by questionnaires.
Specifically, differences in the P300 window between sexual and neutral
stimuli were <b>predicted by sexual desire</b>, but not by any (of three) measures of hypersexuality. <b>If sexual desire</b> most strongly predicts neural responses to sexual stimuli, <b>management of sexual desire</b>, without necessarily addressing some of the proposed concomitants of hypersexuality, might be an effective method for <b>reducing distressing sexual feelings or behaviors.</b></blockquote>
Nowhere do we see <i>lower </i>sexual desire. Instead we are given - "<b>predicted by sexual desire" </b>and <b>"management of sexual desire" </b>and<b> "reducing distressing sexual feelings or behaviors." </b>Not
only did the study hypnotize readers into believing porn addiction was
really just high libido, Prause reinforced this meme in <a href="http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/the-sexual-continuum/201307/new-brain-study-questions-existence-sexual-addiction" target="_blank">in her interviews</a>: (note the wording)<br />
<blockquote>
<b>What is the main finding in your study?</b></blockquote>
<blockquote>
"We found that the brain’s response to sexual pictures was not
predicted by any of three different questionnaire measures of
hypersexuality. <b>Brain response was only predicted by <span style="color: maroon;">a measure</span> of sexual desire.</b> In other words, hypersexuality does not appear to explain brain differences in sexual response <b>any more than just having a high libido.</b>"</blockquote>
Prause said by "<b><span style="color: maroon;">a</span> measure</b>"
of sexual desire, not by "the entire Sexual Desire Inventory". When
all 14 questions were calculated there was no correlation, and no headline
to turn upside down. Prause makes the same claim in her <a href="http://newsroom.ucla.edu/releases/is-sexual-addiction-the-real-deal-247423">UCLA press release</a>:<br />
<blockquote>
"The brain's response to sexual pictures was not
predicted by any of the three questionnaire measures of hypersexuality,"
she said. "<b>Brain response was only related to the measure of sexual desire</b>. <b>In
other words, hypersexuality does not appear to explain brain responses
to sexual images any more than just having a high libido.</b>"</blockquote>
In both interviews it is suggested that higher P300 readings were related to "higher libido". Everyone in the media bought it. Considering the findings, Steele et al. should have been called - "<i>negative correlation with questions about partnered sex</i>, <i>but no correlation when all SDI questions were calculated</i>". <br />
<br />
<b>Simple: </b>Cue-reactivity (P300 readings) were <i>negatively</i> correlated (r=-.33) with desire for sex with a partner. Put simply: <b>less desire for sex correlated greater cue-reactivity for porn. </b>Overall,
no correlation existed between EEG readings and the entire 14-question
sexual desire inventory.. Even if a positive correlation existed, the
claim that "high desire" is mutually exclusive from "addiction" is
preposterous.<br />
<br />
Finally, it's important to note that the study contains two errors in regard to the SDI. Quoting the study:<br />
<blockquote>
"<i>The SDI measures levels of sexual desire using<b> two scales</b> composed of <b>seven items each</b>.</i>"</blockquote>
In fact, the <a href="http://www.reuniting.info/download/pdf/sdi-2.pdf" target="_blank">Sexual Desire Inventory</a> contains <b>nine partnered questions</b>, <b>four solitary question</b>s, and <b>one question</b> that cannot be categorized (#14).<br />
<br />
<b>Second mistake</b>: Table 2 says the Solitary test score
range is "3-26," and yet the female mean exceeds it. It's
26.46--literally off the charts. What happened? The four solitary sex
questions (10-13) add up to a possible score of "31".<br />
<br />
The lively media blitz, which accompanied publication of this study,
bases its attention-grabbing headlines on partial SDI results. Yet the
study write-up contains glaring errors about the SDI itself, which do
not engender confidence in the researchers.<br />
<br />
<h3>
<span style="line-height: 115%; mso-bidi-font-family: Arial; mso-bidi-font-size: 14.0pt; mso-bidi-font-style: italic;">High Desire is Mutually Exclusive with Addiction?</span></h3>
<h3>
<span style="line-height: 115%; mso-bidi-font-family: Arial; mso-bidi-font-size: 14.0pt; mso-bidi-font-style: italic;"> </span></h3>
Although Steele et al. actually reported <i>less</i> desire for partnered
sex correlating to cue-reactivity, 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 Steele et al. - <a href="http://www.socioaffectiveneuroscipsychol.net/index.php/snp/article/view/23833/32589" target="_blank">High desire’, or ‘merely’ an addiction? A response to Steele et al., by Donald L. Hilton, Jr., MD*</a>.)<br />
<br />
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).<br />
<br />
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 <a href="http://www.asam.org/for-the-public/definition-of-addiction" target="_blank" title="American Society of Addiction Medicine - definition of addiction">shared by all addicts</a>, such as severe negative repercussions, inability to control use, cravings, etc.<br />
<br />
Is this study part of a rash of studies based on the peculiar logic
that any measure of "high desire," however questionable, grants immunity
from addiction? A Canadian sexologist endeavored to paint this same
picture in a 2010 paper entitled, <a href="http://www.christofflab.ca/pdfs/winters2010-dysregulatedsexuality.pdf" target="_blank">Dysregulated sexuality and high sexual desire: distinct constructs?</a>
Noting that people who seek treatment for sexual behavior addictions
report both dysregulated sexuality and high desire, he boldly concluded:<br />
<blockquote>
"The results of this study suggest that dysregulated
sexuality, as currently conceptualized, labeled, and measured, may
simply be a marker of high sexual desire and the distress associated
with managing a high degree of sexual thoughts, feelings, and needs."</blockquote>
Again, sexual behavior addiction itself produces cravings that often
show up as "a high degree of sexual thoughts, feelings, and needs." It's
simply wishful thinking to suggest "high sexual desire" eliminates the
existence of addiction. Below are studies that directly refute "porn
addiction is really high desre" model:<br />
<br />
<a href="http://www.yourbrainonporn.com/cybersex-addiction-experienced-sexual-arousal-when-watching-pornography-and-not-real-life-sexual">Cybersex
addiction: Experienced sexual arousal when watching pornography and not
real-life sexual contacts makes the difference (2013)</a><br />
<blockquote>
<b>Quote: </b>"Moreover, it was shown that
problematic cybersex users report greater sexual arousal and craving
reactions resulting from pornographic cue presentation. In both studies,
the number and the quality with real-life sexual contacts were not
associated to cybersex addiction."</blockquote>
<a href="http://yourbrainonporn.com/brain-structure-and-functional-connectivity-associated-pornography-consumption-2014">Brain Structure and Functional Connectivity Associated With Pornography Consumption: The Brain on Porn (2014)</a>.<br />
<br />
This fMRI study found that higher hours per week/more years of porn
viewing correlated with less brain activation when exposed to photos of
vanilla porn. Said the researchers:<br />
<blockquote>
"This is in line with the hypothesis that intense
exposure to pornographic stimuli results in a downregulation of the
natural neural response to sexual stimuli<b>." </b></blockquote>
Kühn & Gallinat also reported more porn use correlating with less
reward circuit grey matter and disruption of the circuits involved with
impulse control. In <a href="http://www.dw.com/en/pea-brain-watching-porn-online-will-wear-out-your-brain-and-make-it-shrivel/a-17681654" target="_blank">this article</a> researcher Simone Kühn, said:<br />
<blockquote>
“That could mean that regular consumption of pornography more or less wears out your reward system.”</blockquote>
Kühn says existing psychological, scientific literature suggests
consumers of porn will seek material with novel and more extreme sex
games.<br />
<blockquote>
“That would fit perfectly the hypothesis that their reward systems need growing stimulation.”</blockquote>
Put simply, men who use more porn may need greater stimulation for
the response level seen in lighter consumers, and photos of vanilla porn
are unlikely to register as all that interesting. Less interest,
equates to less attention, and lower EEG readings. End of story.<br />
<br />
<a href="http://www.yourbrainonporn.com/cambridge-university-brain-scans-find-porn-addiction" target="_blank" title="Cambridge Study: Internet porn addiction mirrors drug addiction (2014)">Neural Correlates of Sexual Cue Reactivity in Individuals with and without Compulsive Sexual Behaviours (2014)</a><br />
<br />
This study found that porn addicts had same brain activity as seen in
drug addicts and alcoholics. The researchers also reported that 60% of
subjects (average age: 25) had difficulty achieving erections/arousal
with real partners, yet could achieve erections with porn. This finding
completely dismantles the claim that compulsive porn users simply have
higher sexual desire than those who aren't compulsive porn users.<br />
<br />
<h3>
<a href="https://www.blogger.com/null" id="why" name="why"></a>Why No Correlations Between Questionnaires And EEG Readings?</h3>
<h3>
</h3>
A major claim by Steele et al. is that the<i> lack of correlations</i>
between subjects EEG readings (P300) and 3 other questionnaires means
porn addiction doesn't exist. Two major reasons account for the lack of
correlation:<br />
<ol>
<li>The researchers chose vastly different subjects (women, men,
heterosexuals, non-heterosexuals), but showed them all standard,
possibly uninteresting, male+female sexual images.<b> Put simply,
the results of this study were dependent on the premise that males,
females, and non-heterosexuals are no different in their response to
sexual images. </b>This is clearly not the case (below).</li>
<li>The two questionaires Steele et al. relied upon in both EEG studies to
assess "porn addiction" are not validated to screen for internet porn
use/addiction. In the press, Prause repeatedly pointed to the lack of
correlation between EEG scores and "hypersexuality" scales, but there is
no reason to expect a correlation in porn addicts.</li>
</ol>
<b><a href="https://www.blogger.com/null" id="diversity" name="diversity"><span data-mce-style="text-decoration: underline;">Unacceptable Diversity Of Test Subjects</span></a>:</b>
The researchers chose vastly different subjects (women, men,
heterosexuals, non-heterosexuals), but showed them all standard,
possibly uninteresting, male+female porn. This matters, because it
violates standard procedure for addiction studies, in which researchers
select <i>homogeneous</i> subjects in terms of age, gender, orientation, even similar IQ's (<i>plus</i> a homogeneous control group) in order to avoid distortions caused by such differences.<br />
This is especially critical for studies like this one, which measured
arousal to sexual images, as research confirms that men and women have
significantly different brain responses to sexual images or films. This
flaw alone explains the lack of correlations between EEG readings and
questionnaires. Previous studies confirm significant differences between
males and females in response to sexual images. See, for example:<br />
<ul>
<li><a data-mce-="" href="http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23519591">Gender Differences in Sexual Arousal and Affective Responses to Erotica.</a></li>
<li><a href="http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22450197">Sex differences in brain activation to emotional stimuli: a meta-analysis of neuroimaging studies</a></li>
<li><a href="http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8561662">Habituation of female sexual arousal to slides and film.</a></li>
<li><a data-mce-="" href="http://www.yourbrainonporn.com/skin-sympathetic-nerve-activity-humans-during-exposure-emotionally-charged-images-sex-differences">Skin sympathetic nerve activity in humans during exposure to emotionally-charged images: sex differences</a></li>
<li><a href="http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23643564">The late
positive potential (LPP) in response to varying types of emotional and
cigarette stimuli in smokers: a content comparison</a></li>
<li><a href="http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25971857">Sex differences in interactions between nucleus accumbens and visual cortex by explicit visual erotic stimuli: an fMRI study.</a></li>
<li><a href="http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15129155">Affective picture perception: gender differences in visual cortex?</a></li>
<li><a href="http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18719987">Sex-specific content preferences for visual sexual stimuli.</a></li>
<li><a href="http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18343987">Sex differences in patterns of genital sexual arousal: measurement artifacts or true phenomena?</a></li>
<li><a href="http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17362952">Sex differences in viewing sexual stimuli: an eye-tracking study in men and women</a></li>
<li><a href="http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15004563">Men and women differ in amygdala response to visual sexual stimuli</a></li>
<li><a href="http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22406875">Effects of
gender and relationship context in audio narratives on genital and
subjective sexual response in heterosexual women and men.</a></li>
<li><a href="http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17668312">Sex differences in visual attention to erotic and non-erotic stimuli</a></li>
<li><a href="http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2739403/">Sex Differences in Response to Visual Sexual Stimuli: A Review</a></li>
<li><a href="http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18006098">Skin conductance responses to visual sexual stimuli.</a></li>
<li><a href="http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17599269">Does subliminal exposure to sexual stimuli have the same effects on men and women? (2007)</a></li>
<li><a href="http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26813476">An fMRI Study of Responses to Sexual Stimuli as a Function of Gender and Sensation Seeking: A Preliminary Analysis (2016)</a></li>
<li><a href="http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3771859/">The
Late Positive Potential (LPP) in Response to Varying Types of Emotional
and Cigarette Stimuli in Smokers: A Content Comparison (2016)</a></li>
<li><a href="https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27734171">The Effects of Positive Versus Negative Mood States on Attentional Processes During Exposure to Erotica (2016)</a></li>
<li><a href="http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0091302216300425">The neural basis of sex differences in sexual behavior: A quantitative meta-analysis (2016)</a></li>
</ul>
<br />
Can we be confident that a <i>non-heterosexual </i>has the
same enthusiasm for male-female porn as a heterosexual male? No, and
his/her inclusion could distort EEG averages rendering meaningful
correlations unlikely. See, for example, <a data-mce-="" href="http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20576388" target="_blank">Neural circuits of disgust induced by sexual stimuli in homosexual and heterosexual men: an fMRI study.</a><br />
<br />
Surprisingly, Prause herself stated in <a href="http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/14681994.2012.660141#preview" target="_blank" title="Clinical and research concerns with vibratory stimulation: a review and pilot study of common stimulation devices">an earlier study (2012)</a> that individuals vary tremendously in their response to sexual images:<br />
<blockquote>
"Film stimuli are vulnerable to individual differences in
attention to different components of the stimuli (Rupp & Wallen,
2007), preference for specific content (Janssen, Goodrich, Petrocelli,
& Bancroft, 2009) or clinical histories making portions of the
stimuli aversive (Wouda et al.,1998)."</blockquote>
<blockquote>
"Still, individuals will vary tremendously in the visual cues that
signal sexual arousal to them (Graham, Sanders, Milhausen, &
McBride, 2004)."</blockquote>
In a <a href="http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23835845" target="_blank" title="Biases for Affective Versus Sexual Content in Multidimensional Scaling Analysis: An Individual Difference Perspective.">Prause study</a> published a few weeks before this one she said:<br />
<blockquote>
"Many studies using the popular International Affective
Picture System (Lang, Bradley, & Cuthbert, 1999) use different
stimuli for the men and women in their sample."</blockquote>
Maybe Prause should read her own statements to discover the reason
why her current EEG readings varied so much. Individual differences are
normal, and large variations are to be expected with a sexually diverse
group of subjects.<br />
<br />
<a href="https://www.blogger.com/null" id="irrelevant" name="irrelevant"><u><b>Irrelevant Questionnaires:</b></u></a><b> </b>The SCS (<a href="https://www.chip.uconn.edu/chipweb/documents/Research/K_SexualCompulsivityScale.pdf" target="_blank">Sexual Compulsivity Scale</a>) cannot assess Internet-porn addiction. It was created in 1995 and designed with uncontrolled sexual <i>relations</i> in mind (in connection with investigating the AIDS epidemic). The <a href="http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8609589/" target="_blank" title="Sexual Compulsivity Scale">SCS says</a>:<br />
<blockquote>
"The scale has been should [shown?] to predict rates of
sexual behaviors, numbers of sexual partners, practice of a variety of
sexual behaviors, and histories of sexually transmitted diseases."</blockquote>
Moreover, the SCS's developer warns that this tool won't show psychopathology in women:<br />
<blockquote>
"Associations between sexual compulsivity scores and
other markers of psychopathology showed different patterns for men and
women; sexual compulsivity was associated with indexes of
psychopathology in men but <b>not in women</b>."</blockquote>
Furthermore, the SCS includes partner-related questions that
Internet-porn addicts might score quite differently compared with sex
addicts, given that compulsive porn users often have a far <a href="http://onania.org/asm/post/13003" target="_blank" title="Onania support group">greater appetite for cyber erotica</a> than actual sex.<br />
<br />
Like the SCS, the second hypersexuality questionnaire (<a href="http://https//books.google.com/books?id=gUnbAAAAQBAJ&lpg=PA148&ots=Ks2cLmarht&lr&pg=PA150#v=onepage&q&f=true" target="_blank" title="CBSOB - hypersexuality">the CBSOB</a>)
has no questions about Internet porn use. It was designed to screen for
"hypersexual" subjects, and out-of-control sexual behaviors - not
strictly the overuse of sexually explicit materials on the internet.<br />
<br />
Another questionnaire the researchers administered is the PCES (Pornography Consumption Effect Scale), which has been called a "<a href="http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/cupids-poisoned-arrow/201306/pornography-consumption-effect-scale-useful-or-not" target="_blank" title="Pornography Consumption Effect Scale">psychometric nightmare</a>," and there's no reason to believe it can indicate anything about Internet porn addiction <i>or</i> sex addiction.<br />
<br />
Thus, the lack of correlation between EEG readings and these questionnaires contributes no support to the study's conclusions or the author's claims.<br />
<br />
<b><a href="https://www.blogger.com/null" id="screen" name="screen"><u>No Pre-Screening</u></a>:</b>
Steele et al's subjects were not pre-screened. Valid addiction brain studies
screen out individuals with pre-existing conditions (depression, OCD,
other addictions, etc.). This is the only way responsible researchers
can draw conclusions about addiction. See the <a href="http://www.yourbrainonporn.com/cambridge-university-brain-scans-find-porn-addiction" target="_blank">Cambridge study</a> for an example of proper screening & methodology.<br />
<br />
Steele et al's subjects were also not pre-screened for porn addiction.
Standard procedure for addiction studies is to screen subjects with an
addiction test in order to compare those who test positive for an
addiction with those who do not. These researchers did not do this, even
though an <a href="http://www.reuniting.info/download/pdf/s-IAT_english.pdf" target="_blank" title="s-IAT ">Internet porn-addiction test exists</a>. Instead, researchers administered the Sexual Compulsivity Scale <i>after</i> participants were already chosen. As explained, the SCS is not valid for porn addiction or for women.<br />
<br />
<b><u>Use of Generic Porn For Diverse Subjects</u>:</b> Steele et al. admits that its choice of "inadequate" porn may have altered
results. Even under ideal conditions, choice of test porn is tricky, as
porn users (especially addicts) often escalate through a series of
tastes. <a href="http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/cupids-poisoned-arrow/201110/can-you-trust-your-johnson" target="_blank" title="Can You Trust Your Johnson?">Many report</a> having little sexual response to porn genres that do not match their porn-<i>du-jour</i>—including
genres that they found quite arousing earlier in their porn-watching
careers. For example, much of today's porn is consumed via
high-definition videos, and the stills used here may not elicit the same
response.<br />
<br />
Thus, the use of generic porn can affect results. If a porn
enthusiast is anticipating viewing porn, reward circuit activity
presumably increases. Yet if the porn turns out to be some boring
heterosexual pictures that don't match his/her current genre or stills
instead of high-definition fetish videos, the user may have little or no
response, or <a href="http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20576388" target="_blank">even aversion</a>. "What was <i>that</i>?"<br />
<br />
This is the equivalent of testing the cue reactivity of bunch of food
addicts by serving everyone a single food: baked potatoes. If a
participant doesn't happen to like baked potatoes, she must not have a
problem with eating too much, right?<br />
<br />
A valid addiction "brain study" must: 1) have homogenous subjects and
controls, 2) screen out other mental disorders and other addictions,
and 3) use validated questionnaires and interviews to assure the
subjects are actually porn addicts. Steele et al. did none of
these, yet drew vast conclusions and published them widely.<br />
<br />
<h3>
</h3>
<h3>
No Control Group, Yet Claims Required One</h3>
<br />
The researchers did not investigate a control group of non-problem
porn users. That didn't stop the authors from making claims in the media
which required a control group comparison. For example:<br />
<a data-cke-saved-href="http://newsroom.ucla.edu/releases/is-sexual-addiction-the-real-deal-247423" data-mce-href="http://newsroom.ucla.edu/releases/is-sexual-addiction-the-real-deal-247423" href="http://newsroom.ucla.edu/releases/is-sexual-addiction-the-real-deal-247423"><b>UCLA press release</b>:</a><br />
<blockquote>
"If
they indeed suffer from hypersexuality, or sexual addiction, their
brain response to visual sexual stimuli could be expected be higher, in
much the same way that the brains of cocaine addicts have been shown to
react to images of the drug in other studies."</blockquote>
<a data-cke-saved-href="http://losangeles.cbslocal.com/2013/07/18/ucla-study-suggests-sexual-addiction-isnt-a-real-disorder/" data-mce-href="http://losangeles.cbslocal.com/2013/07/18/ucla-study-suggests-sexual-addiction-isnt-a-real-disorder/" href="http://losangeles.cbslocal.com/2013/07/18/ucla-study-suggests-sexual-addiction-isnt-a-real-disorder/"><b>TV interview:</b></a><br />
<blockquote>
<b>Reporter:</b> "They were shown various erotic images, and their brain activity monitored."<br />
<b></b></blockquote>
<blockquote>
<b>Prause</b>: "If you think sexual problems are an addiction, we would have expected to see an <span style="color: red;"><b>enhanced response</b></span>,
maybe, to those sexual images. If you think it's a problem of
impulsivity, we would have expected to see decreased responses to those
sexual images. <b>And <span data-mce-style="color: #ff0000;" style="color: red;">the fact that we didn't see any of those relationships</span> suggests that there's not great support for looking at these problem sexual behaviors as an addiction."</b></blockquote>
In reality, Steele et al. reported higher P300 readings for porn images than for neutral images. That is claerly an "<b>enhanced response</b>". Commenting under the <a data-cke-saved-href="http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/the-sexual-continuum/201307/new-brain-study-questions-existence-sexual-addiction" data-mce-href="http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/the-sexual-continuum/201307/new-brain-study-questions-existence-sexual-addiction" href="http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/the-sexual-continuum/201307/new-brain-study-questions-existence-sexual-addiction">Psychology Today interview </a>of Prause, p<a data-cke-saved-href="http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/the-sexual-continuum/201307/new-brain-study-questions-existence-sexual-addiction/comments#comment-556448" data-mce-href="http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/the-sexual-continuum/201307/new-brain-study-questions-existence-sexual-addiction/comments#comment-556448" href="http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/the-sexual-continuum/201307/new-brain-study-questions-existence-sexual-addiction/comments#comment-556448">sychology professor John A. Johnson said</a>:<br />
<blockquote>
"My
mind still boggles at the Prause claim that her subjects' brains did
not respond to sexual images like drug addicts' brains respond to their
drug, given that she reports higher P300 readings for the sexual images.
Just like addicts who show P300 spikes when presented with their drug
of choice. How could she draw a conclusion that is the opposite of the
actual results? I think it could be do to her preconceptions--what she
expected to find."</blockquote>
In short, what Prause boldly
proclaimed in her many media interviews is not backed up by the results.
Another claim from the interview that required a control group:<br />
<blockquote>
<b>Mustanski</b>: What was the purpose of the study?<br />
<b></b><b></b></blockquote>
<blockquote>
<b>Prause:</b>
Our study tested whether people who report such problems look like
other addicts from their brain responses to sexual images. Studies of
drug addictions, such as cocaine, have shown a consistent pattern of
brain response to images of the drug of abuse, so we predicted that we
should see the same pattern in people who report problems with sex if it
was, in fact, an addiction.</blockquote>
Prause's reply to
Mustanski indicates that her study was designed to see if the brain
response to sexual images for people reporting problems with sex was
similar to the brain response of drug users when they encounter images
of the drug to which they are addicted.<br />
<br />
A reading of the cocaine study she cites (<i><a data-cke-saved-href="http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3086977/" data-mce-href="http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3086977/" href="http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3086977/">Dunning, et al., 2011</a>)</i>,
however, indicates that the design of Steele et al. was quite different
from the Dunning study, and that Steele et al. did not even look for
the kind of brain responses recorded in the Dunning study.<br />
<br />
The Dunning study used three groups: 27 abstinent cocaine users, 28 current cocaine users, and 29 non-using control subjects.
Steele et al. used only one sample of persons: those who reported
problems regulating their viewing of sexual images. Whereas the Dunning
study was able to compare the responses of cocaine addicts to healthy
controls, the Prause study did not compare the responses of the troubled
sample with a control group.<br />
<br />
There are more differences. The
Dunning study measured several different event-related potentials (ERPs)
in the brain, because previous research had indicated important
differences in the psychological processes reflected in the ERPs. The
Dunning study separately measured early posterior negativity (EPN),
thought to reflect early selective attention, and late positive
potential (LPP), thought to reflect further processing of motivationally
significant material. The Dunning study further distinguished the early
component of LPP, thought to represent initial attention capture, from
the later component of LPP, thought to reflect sustained processing.
Distinguishing these different ERPs is important because differences
among the abstinent addicts, current users, and non-using controls
depended on which ERP was being assessed.<br />
<br />
In contrast, Steele et
al. looked only at the ERP called P300, which Dunning compares to the
early window of LPP. By their own admission, Prause and her colleagues
report that this might not have been the best strategy:<br />
<blockquote>
"Another
possibility is that the P300 is not the best place to identify
relationships with sexually motivating stimuli. The slightly later LPP
appears more strongly linked to motivation.<b>"</b></blockquote>
The upshot is that Steele et al <span data-mce-style="text-decoration: underline;" style="text-decoration: underline;"><b>did not</b> in fact examine</span> w<i>hether the brain responses of sexually troubled individuals "showed the same pattern</i>"
as the responses of addicts. They did not use the same ERP variables
used in the cocaine study and they did not use an abstinent group and a
control group, so they should not have compared their results to the
Dunning study claiming the comparison was "apples to apples."<br />
<br />
<h3>
EEG Technology Limitations</h3>
<h3>
</h3>
Finally, EEG technology cannot measure the results the researchers claim it can. Although the researchers insist that, "<i>Neural
responsivity to sexual stimuli in a sample of hypersexuals could
differentiate these two competing explanations of symptoms [evidence of
addiction versus high sexual desire],</i>" in fact it's unlikely that
EEGs can do this at all. Although EEG technology has been around for 100
years, debate continues as to what actually causes brain waves, or what
specific EEG readings really signify. As a consequence, experimental
results may be interpreted in a variety of ways. See <a href="http://www.amazon.com/Brainwashed-Seductive-Appeal-Mindless-Neuroscience/dp/0465018777" target="_blank" title="Brainwashed: The Seductive Appeal of Mindless Neuroscience"><i>Brainwashed: The Seductive Appeal of Mindless Neuroscience</i></a> for a discussion of how EEGs can be misused to draw unfounded conclusions.<br />
<br />
EEGs measure electrical activity on the outside of the skull, and
addiction researchers who use EEGs look for very narrow signals of
specific aspects of addiction. For example, this <a href="http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23770040" target="_blank" title="Resting-state beta and gamma activity in Internet addiction">recent EEG study on Internet addicts</a>
shows how accomplished Internet-addiction neuroscientists conduct such
experiments. Note that researchers isolate narrow aspects of the brain's
activity, such as impulsivity, and avoid overly broad claims of the
type made here by SPAN Lab. Also note the control group and
pre-screening for addiction, both of which are absent in this SPAN Lab
effort.<br />
<br />
Perhaps the authors are unaware of the technology's inability to distinguish among overlapping cognitive processes:<br />
<blockquote>
"The P300 [EEG measurement] is well known and often used
to measure neural reactivity to emotional, sometimes sexual, visual
stimuli. <i>A drawback to indexing a large, slow ERP component is the
inherent nature of overlapping cognitive processes that underlie such a
component. In the current report, the P300 could be, and most-likely is,
indexing multiple ongoing cognitive processes</i>." (Emphasis added.)</blockquote>
Never mind that, by their own admission, P300 might not be the best
choice for an ERP study of this type. Never mind that conducting
statistical analyses with difference scores has been recognized as
problematic for over 50 years, such that now alternatives to difference
scores are usually used (see <a href="http://public.kenan-flagler.unc.edu/faculty/edwardsj/Edwards2001b.pdf">http://public.kenan-flagler.unc.edu/faculty/edwardsj/Edwards2001b.pdf</a>).
Never mind that we do not really know what the amplitude of P300 to
particular images relative to neutral images really signifies. P300
involves attention to emotionally significant information, but as Prause
and her colleagues admit, they couldn't predict whether P300 in
response to sexual images would be especially elevated for people with
high sexual desire (because they experience strong emotions to sexual
situations) or whether the P300 would be especially flat (because they
were habituated to sexual imagery).<br />
<br />
Nor could they delineate between greater attention (higher P300)
caused by sexual arousal, or greater attention caused by strong <a href="http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12459215" target="_blank" title="May I have your attention, please: electrocortical responses to positive and negative stimuli.">negative emotions</a>,
such as disgust. Nor can EEG technology delineate between a higher P300
reading arising from sexual arousal versus shock/surprise. Nor can EEG
technology tell us if the brain's reward circuitry was activated or not.<br />
<br />
There is a more fundamental problem here: Steele et al.
seems to want to take an either/or approach the viewing of sexual
images—that EEG responses are either due to sexual desire or to an
addictive problem - as if desire can be separated completely from
addictive problems. Would anyone suggest that EEG responses in
alcoholics or cocaine addicts might be due either entirely to their
desire for the addictive substance <i><b>or </b></i>to their addictive problem?<br />
<br />
Other factors can influence EEG readings. What if an image is related
to a genre you like, but the pornstar reminds you of a person you
dislike/fear/don't care to see naked. Your brain will have conflicting
associations for such erotica. These conflicts may well be more likely
in the case of porn images than in the case of, say, cocaine visuals of
powder and noses (used when testing cocaine addicts).<br />
<br />
The point is that multiple associations with a stimulus as complex as sexuality could easily skew EEG readings.<br />
<br />
Also, Steele et al. assumed higher EEG averages indicate higher sexual
arousal, but subjects' EEG averages were in fact all over the map. Is
this because some of them were addicts and others not? Or watching porn
that turned them off. Many factors can affect P300 readings. Consider
the following, from <a href="http://scielo.isciii.es/scielo.php?pid=S0213-61632009000400003&script=sci_arttext" target="_blank">another P300 study</a>:<br />
<blockquote>
Although the functional significance of P300 is still debated<sup>1</sup><sup>, 2</sup>, its amplitude indexes the allocation of resources for the evaluation of stimuli....<b>Reduced P300</b> amplitude has been reported in many psychiatric disorders, including schizophrenia<sup>4</sup>, depression<sup>5</sup>, and alcoholism<sup>6</sup>.</blockquote>
In short, the author's hypothesis that brains of addicts will show
either evidence of addiction or evidence of "high sexual desire" is
uninformed. Yet the abstract creates in the reader the impression that
the study's results will show us that these hypersexuals either
exhibited (1) evidence of addiction or (2) a positive correlation with
"high sexual desire." And the study's title then misleadingly proclaims
"sexual desire" the winner.<br />
<br />
<br />
<h3>
<span style="line-height: 115%;"><span style="font-family: "verdana" , sans-serif;">Cues confounded with addictive behavior</span></span><span style="line-height: 115%;"><span style="font-family: "verdana" , sans-serif;">:</span> </span><span style="font-family: inherit; line-height: 115%;"> </span></h3>
<br />
<br />
<span style="font-family: inherit; line-height: 115%;">Another problem with the
study's design is that SPAN Lab confuses addiction-related cues with addiction
itself (behavior). In this study, the researchers claim that watching porn is a
cue, not unlike an alcoholic viewing a picture of a vodka bottle, and that
masturbation is the addictive activity. This is incorrect. </span><br />
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><span style="line-height: 115%; mso-bidi-font-size: 14.0pt;"><br /></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="line-height: 115%; mso-bidi-font-size: 14.0pt;"><span style="font-family: inherit;">Watching
porn, which is what researchers asked these subjects to do, is <i>the</i> addictive activity for an Internet
porn addict. Many users watch even when masturbation isn't an option (e.g.,
while riding the bus, on library computers, at work, in waiting rooms, etc.).
Viewing porn for stimulation <i>is </i>their
uncontrolled behavior.</span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="line-height: 115%; mso-bidi-font-size: 14.0pt;"><span style="font-family: inherit;"><br /></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="line-height: 115%; mso-bidi-font-size: 14.0pt;"><span style="font-family: inherit;">In
contrast, true cues for porn addicts would be such things as seeing bookmarks
of their favorite porn sites, hearing a word or seeing an image that reminds
them of their favorite porn fetish or porn star, private access to highspeed
Internet, and so forth. To be sure, seeing a visual that signals a fetish might
serve as a cue for someone with an addiction to that genre of fetish porn, but
here researchers used generic porn, not porn tailored to subjects' individual
tastes.</span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="line-height: 115%; mso-bidi-font-size: 14.0pt;"><span style="font-family: inherit;"><br /></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="line-height: 115%; mso-bidi-font-size: 14.0pt;"><span style="font-family: inherit;">The
assumption that this study is "just like" drug studies, is one of the
many shaky assumptions<span style="font-family: inherit;"> Steele et al. makes</span> Keep in mind that a picture of a
blackjack table is not gambling; a picture of a bowl of ice cream is not
eating. Viewing porn, in contrast, <i>is </i>the
addictive activity. No one has any idea what EEG readings <i>should </i>be for porn addicts engaging in their addictive activity.</span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="line-height: 115%; mso-bidi-font-size: 14.0pt;"><span style="font-family: inherit;"><br /></span></span></div>
<span style="line-height: 115%; mso-bidi-font-size: 14.0pt;"><span style="font-family: inherit;">By
discussing their results in light of genuine cue research relating to other
addictions, the researchers imply that they are comparing "apples to
apples." They are not. First, the other addiction studies </span></span><span style="line-height: 115%; mso-bidi-font-size: 14.0pt;"><span style="font-family: inherit;"><span style="line-height: 115%; mso-bidi-font-size: 14.0pt;"><span style="font-family: inherit;"><span style="font-family: inherit;">Steele et al. </span></span></span>cites involve
chemical addictions. Porn addiction is not as easy to test in the lab for
reasons already explained. Second, the design of </span></span><span style="line-height: 115%; mso-bidi-font-size: 14.0pt;"><span style="font-family: inherit;"><span style="line-height: 115%; mso-bidi-font-size: 14.0pt;"><span style="font-family: inherit;"><span style="font-family: inherit;">Steele et al.</span></span></span> is entirely
different from those studies it cites (no control groups, etc.).</span></span><br />
<br />
<span style="line-height: 115%; mso-bidi-font-size: 14.0pt;"><span style="font-family: inherit;">Future <span style="font-family: inherit;">studies</span> on cue<span style="font-family: inherit;">-</span>reactivity t<span style="font-family: inherit;">o sexual</span> images or explicit film<span style="font-family: inherit;">s must be very cautious in <span style="font-family: inherit;">their</span> <span style="font-family: inherit;">interpretation</span> of the results. For example a diminished brain <span style="font-family: inherit;">response</span> could indicate <span style="font-family: inherit;">desensitization or habituation, rather than "not being addicted". </span></span></span></span><br />
<br />
<h3>
<b>Conclusion</b></h3>
First, one can make a strong argument that this study should have
never been published. Its diversity of subjects, questionnaires
incapable of assessing internet porn addiction, lack of screening for
co-morbidities, and absence of control group resulted in unreliable results.<br />
<br />
Second, the solitary correlation - <i>less desire for partnered sex correlating with higher P300</i>
- indicates that more porn use leads to greater cue-reactivity
(cravings for porn), yet less desire to have sex with a real person. Put
simply: Subjects using more porn craved porn, but their desire for real
sex was lower than in those who viewed less. Not exactly what the
headlines stated or the authors claimed in the media (that more porn use
was correlated with higher desire "sexual desire").<br />
<br />
Third, the "physiological" finding of <i>higher P300 when exposed to porn </i>indicates sensitization (hyper-reactivity to porn), which is an addiction process.<br />
<br />
Finally, we have the authors making claims to the media that are
light years away from the data. From the headlines, it's clearly
journalists bought the spin. This points to the bleak state of science
journalism. Science bloggers and news outlets simply repeated what they
were fed. No one in the media read the study, checked the facts, or
asked for an educated second opinion from actual addiction
neuroscientists. If you want to promote a certain agenda, all you need
to do is concoct a clever press release. It matters not what your study
actually found, or that your flawed methodology may only produce a
jumbled data salad.<br />
<hr />
<h4>
Also see these critiques of the same study:</h4>
<ul>
<li><a href="http://pornstudyskeptics.blogspot.com/2013/07/misinformed-media-touts-bogus-sex.html" target="_blank">Misinformed Media Touts Bogus Sex Addiction Study, by Robert Weiss, LCSW & Stefanie Carnes PhD</a></li>
<li><a href="http://pornstudyskeptics.blogspot.com/2013/07/dont-call-it-hypersexuality-why-we-need.html" target="_blank">"Don’t Call it Hypersexuality: Why we Need the Term Sex Addiction," By Linda Hatch, PhD</a></li>
</ul>
<hr />
<br />
Similar to Prause's current study, her second study from
2013 found significant differences between controls and "porn addicts" -
"<i><b><a href="http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/10720162.2013.772874#preview" target="_blank">No Evidence of Emotion Dysregulation in “Hypersexuals” Reporting Their Emotions to a Sexual Film (2013)</a></b></i>." As explained in <a href="http://pornstudyskeptics.blogspot.com/2013/07/study-porn-users-report-narrower.html" target="_blank">this critique</a>, the title purposely hides the actual findings. In fact, "porn addicts" had <i>less</i> emotional response when compared to controls. This is not surprising as many <a href="http://yourbrainonporn.com/can-porn-use-blunt-my-emotions" target="_blank" title="Can porn use blunt my emotions?">porn addicts report numbed feelings </a>and
emotions. Prause justified the title by saying she expected "greater
emotional response", but provided no citation for her dubious
"expectation." A more accurate title would have been: "<i>Subjects who have difficulty controlling their porn use show less emotional response to sexual films</i>". Which means they are desensitized and bored with vanilla porn. <br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
_______________<br />
<h3>
UPDATE: Nicole Prause TV interview doesn't match study results</h3>
<div>
</div>
As a psychology professor pointed out,<br />
<blockquote>
In <a href="http://losangeles.cbslocal.com/2013/07/18/ucla-study-suggests-sexual-addiction-isnt-a-real-disorder/">this TV interview</a> Nicole Prause totally contradicts one of her findings. I've transcribed that portion:</blockquote>
<blockquote>
<div style="margin-left: 40px;">
<b>Reporter:</b> "They were shown various erotic images, and their brain activity monitored."</div>
<div style="margin-left: 40px;">
<b><br /></b></div>
</blockquote>
<blockquote>
<div style="margin-left: 40px;">
<b>Prause</b>: "If you think
sexual problems are an addiction, we would have expected to see an
enhanced response, maybe, to those sexual images. If you think it's a
problem of impulsivity, we would have expected to see decreased
responses to those sexual images. And the fact that we didn't see any of
those relationships suggests that there's not great support for looking
at these problem sexual behaviors as an addiction."</div>
</blockquote>
<blockquote>
The written story under the TV window has a section on the <a href="http://newsroom.ucla.edu/portal/ucla/is-sexual-addiction-the-real-deal-247423.aspx">UCLA press release</a> that says essentially the same thing:</blockquote>
<blockquote>
<div style="margin-left: 40px;">
"'If they indeed suffer from
hypersexuality, or sexual addiction, their brain response to visual
sexual stimuli could be expected to be higher, in much the same way that
the brains of cocaine addicts have been shown to react to images of the
drug in other studies,' a UCLA press release on the study explained.</div>
</blockquote>
<blockquote>
<div style="margin-left: 40px;">
And yet, that did not happen."</div>
</blockquote>
<blockquote>
But it did happen! The study DID show a much higher amplitude P300
for the erotic images, compared to the other images. So what Prause says
in the interview doesn't match the study results.</blockquote>
__________________________________________</div>
<br />
<br />
<h4>
<!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<w:WordDocument>
<w:View>Normal</w:View>
<w:Zoom>0</w:Zoom>
<w:TrackMoves/>
<w:TrackFormatting/>
<w:PunctuationKerning/>
<w:ValidateAgainstSchemas/>
<w:SaveIfXMLInvalid>false</w:SaveIfXMLInvalid>
<w:IgnoreMixedContent>false</w:IgnoreMixedContent>
<w:AlwaysShowPlaceholderText>false</w:AlwaysShowPlaceholderText>
<w:DoNotPromoteQF/>
<w:LidThemeOther>EN-US</w:LidThemeOther>
<w:LidThemeAsian>X-NONE</w:LidThemeAsian>
<w:LidThemeComplexScript>X-NONE</w:LidThemeComplexScript>
<w:Compatibility>
<w:BreakWrappedTables/>
<w:SnapToGridInCell/>
<w:WrapTextWithPunct/>
<w:UseAsianBreakRules/>
<w:DontGrowAutofit/>
<w:SplitPgBreakAndParaMark/>
<w:DontVertAlignCellWithSp/>
<w:DontBreakConstrainedForcedTables/>
<w:DontVertAlignInTxbx/>
<w:Word11KerningPairs/>
<w:CachedColBalance/>
</w:Compatibility>
<w:BrowserLevel>MicrosoftInternetExplorer4</w:BrowserLevel>
<m:mathPr>
<m:mathFont m:val="Cambria Math"/>
<m:brkBin m:val="before"/>
<m:brkBinSub m:val="--"/>
<m:smallFrac m:val="off"/>
<m:dispDef/>
<m:lMargin m:val="0"/>
<m:rMargin m:val="0"/>
<m:defJc m:val="centerGroup"/>
<m:wrapIndent m:val="1440"/>
<m:intLim m:val="subSup"/>
<m:naryLim m:val="undOvr"/>
</m:mathPr></w:WordDocument>
</xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<w:LatentStyles DefLockedState="false" DefUnhideWhenUsed="true"
DefSemiHidden="true" DefQFormat="false" DefPriority="99"
LatentStyleCount="267">
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="0" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="Normal"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="9" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="heading 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="9" QFormat="true" Name="heading 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="9" QFormat="true" Name="heading 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="9" QFormat="true" Name="heading 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="9" QFormat="true" Name="heading 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="9" QFormat="true" Name="heading 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="9" QFormat="true" Name="heading 7"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="9" QFormat="true" Name="heading 8"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="9" QFormat="true" Name="heading 9"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="39" Name="toc 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="39" Name="toc 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="39" Name="toc 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="39" Name="toc 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="39" Name="toc 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="39" Name="toc 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="39" Name="toc 7"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="39" Name="toc 8"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="39" Name="toc 9"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="35" QFormat="true" Name="caption"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="10" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="Title"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="1" Name="Default Paragraph Font"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="11" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="Subtitle"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="22" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="Strong"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="20" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="Emphasis"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="59" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Table Grid"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Placeholder Text"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="1" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="No Spacing"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="60" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Shading"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="61" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light List"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="62" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Grid"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="63" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="64" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="65" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="66" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="67" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="68" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="69" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="70" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Dark List"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="71" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Shading"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="72" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful List"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="73" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Grid"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="60" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Shading Accent 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="61" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light List Accent 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="62" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Grid Accent 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="63" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 1 Accent 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="64" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 2 Accent 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="65" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 1 Accent 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Revision"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="34" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="List Paragraph"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="29" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="Quote"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="30" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="Intense Quote"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="66" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 2 Accent 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="67" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 1 Accent 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="68" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 2 Accent 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="69" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 3 Accent 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="70" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Dark List Accent 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="71" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Shading Accent 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="72" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful List Accent 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="73" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Grid Accent 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="60" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Shading Accent 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="61" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light List Accent 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="62" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Grid Accent 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="63" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 1 Accent 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="64" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 2 Accent 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="65" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 1 Accent 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="66" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 2 Accent 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="67" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 1 Accent 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="68" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 2 Accent 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="69" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 3 Accent 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="70" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Dark List Accent 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="71" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Shading Accent 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="72" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful List Accent 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="73" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Grid Accent 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="60" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Shading Accent 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="61" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light List Accent 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="62" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Grid Accent 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="63" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 1 Accent 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="64" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 2 Accent 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="65" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 1 Accent 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="66" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 2 Accent 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="67" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 1 Accent 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="68" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 2 Accent 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="69" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 3 Accent 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="70" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Dark List Accent 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="71" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Shading Accent 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="72" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful List Accent 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="73" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Grid Accent 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="60" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Shading Accent 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="61" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light List Accent 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="62" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Grid Accent 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="63" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 1 Accent 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="64" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 2 Accent 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="65" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 1 Accent 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="66" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 2 Accent 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="67" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 1 Accent 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="68" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 2 Accent 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="69" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 3 Accent 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="70" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Dark List Accent 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="71" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Shading Accent 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="72" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful List Accent 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="73" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Grid Accent 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="60" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Shading Accent 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="61" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light List Accent 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="62" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Grid Accent 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="63" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 1 Accent 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="64" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 2 Accent 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="65" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 1 Accent 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="66" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 2 Accent 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="67" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 1 Accent 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="68" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 2 Accent 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="69" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 3 Accent 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="70" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Dark List Accent 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="71" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Shading Accent 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="72" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful List Accent 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="73" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Grid Accent 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="60" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Shading Accent 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="61" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light List Accent 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="62" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Grid Accent 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="63" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 1 Accent 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="64" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 2 Accent 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="65" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 1 Accent 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="66" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 2 Accent 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="67" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 1 Accent 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="68" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 2 Accent 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="69" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 3 Accent 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="70" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Dark List Accent 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="71" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Shading Accent 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="72" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful List Accent 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="73" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Grid Accent 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="19" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="Subtle Emphasis"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="21" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="Intense Emphasis"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="31" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="Subtle Reference"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="32" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="Intense Reference"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="33" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="Book Title"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="37" Name="Bibliography"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="39" QFormat="true" Name="TOC Heading"/>
</w:LatentStyles>
</xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 10]>
<style>
/* Style Definitions */
table.MsoNormalTable
{mso-style-name:"Table Normal";
mso-tstyle-rowband-size:0;
mso-tstyle-colband-size:0;
mso-style-noshow:yes;
mso-style-priority:99;
mso-style-qformat:yes;
mso-style-parent:"";
mso-padding-alt:0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt;
mso-para-margin-top:0in;
mso-para-margin-right:0in;
mso-para-margin-bottom:10.0pt;
mso-para-margin-left:0in;
line-height:115%;
mso-pagination:widow-orphan;
font-size:11.0pt;
font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
mso-ascii-font-family:Calibri;
mso-ascii-theme-font:minor-latin;
mso-hansi-font-family:Calibri;
mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin;
mso-bidi-font-family:"Times New Roman";
mso-bidi-theme-font:minor-bidi;}
</style>
<![endif]--><span style="font-family: "arial" , "sans-serif"; font-size: 12.0pt;">UPDATE (2019) Much
has transpired since July, 2013. </span></h4>
<ul>
</ul>
<br />
In 2013 former UCLA researcher Nicole Prause <a href="https://www.yourbrainonporn.com/relevant-research-and-articles-about-the-studies/critiques-of-questionable-debunking-propaganda-pieces/nicole-prauses-unethical-harassment-and-defamation-of-gary-wilson-others/#emails" rel="noopener" target="_blank">began openly harassing, libeling and cyberstalking Gary Wilson</a>.
Within a short time she also began targeting others, including
researchers, medical doctors, therapists, psychologists, former UCLA
colleagues, a UK charity, men in recovery, a <i>TIME </i>magazine editor, several professors, IITAP, SASH, Fight The New Drug, the academic journal <i>Behavioral Sciences</i>, its parent company MDPI, the head of the academic journal <i>CUREUS, </i>and the journal <i>Sexual Addiction & Compulsivity</i>.<br />
<br />
While spending her waking hours harassing others, Prause cleverly
cultivated – with zero verifiable evidence – a myth that she was “the
victim” of most anyone who dared to disagree with her assertions
surrounding porn’s effects or the current state of porn research. To
counter the ongoing harassment and false claims, YBOP was compelled to
document some of Prause’s activities. Consider the following pages.
(Additional incidents have occurred that we are not at liberty to
divulge – as Prause’s victims fear further retribution.)<br />
<ul>
<li class="page_item page-item-3896 page_item_has_children"><a href="https://www.yourbrainonporn.com/relevant-research-and-articles-about-the-studies/critiques-of-questionable-debunking-propaganda-pieces/nicole-prauses-unethical-harassment-and-defamation-of-gary-wilson-others/">Nicole Prause’s Unethical Harassment and Defamation of Gary Wilson & Others</a></li>
<li class="page_item page-item-18360"><a href="https://www.yourbrainonporn.com/relevant-research-and-articles-about-the-studies/critiques-of-questionable-debunking-propaganda-pieces/nicole-prauses-unethical-harassment-and-defamation-of-gary-wilson-others-2/">Nicole Prause’s Unethical Harassment and Defamation of Gary Wilson & Others (page 2)</a></li>
<li class="page_item page-item-13783"><a href="https://www.yourbrainonporn.com/relevant-research-and-articles-about-the-studies/critiques-of-questionable-debunking-propaganda-pieces/libelous-claim-that-gary-wilson-was-fired-march-2018/">Libelous Claim that Gary Wilson Was Fired (March, 2018)</a></li>
<li class="page_item page-item-14510"><a href="https://www.yourbrainonporn.com/relevant-research-and-articles-about-the-studies/critiques-of-questionable-debunking-propaganda-pieces/prauses-efforts-to-have-behavioral-sciences-review-paper-park-et-al-2016-retracted/">Prause’s efforts to have Behavioral Sciences review paper (<i>Park et al</i>., 2016) retracted</a></li>
</ul>
In the beginning Prause employed dozens of fake usernames to post on <a href="https://www.yourbrainonporn.com/relevant-research-and-articles-about-the-studies/critiques-of-questionable-debunking-propaganda-pieces/nicole-prauses-unethical-harassment-and-defamation-of-gary-wilson-others/#ybr">porn recovery forums</a>, <a href="https://www.yourbrainonporn.com/relevant-research-and-articles-about-the-studies/critiques-of-questionable-debunking-propaganda-pieces/nicole-prauses-unethical-harassment-and-defamation-of-gary-wilson-others/#Quora">Quora</a>, <a href="https://www.yourbrainonporn.com/relevant-research-and-articles-about-the-studies/critiques-of-questionable-debunking-propaganda-pieces/nicole-prauses-unethical-harassment-and-defamation-of-gary-wilson-others-2/#mdpi2">Wikipedia</a>, and in the <a href="https://www.yourbrainonporn.com/relevant-research-and-articles-about-the-studies/critiques-of-questionable-debunking-propaganda-pieces/nicole-prauses-unethical-harassment-and-defamation-of-gary-wilson-others/#cbc">comment sections</a>
under articles. Prause rarely used her real name or her own social
media accounts. That all changed after UCLA chose not to renew Prause’s
contract (around January, 2015).<br />
<img alt="" class="wp-image-19680 alignright" height="397" src="https://www.yourbrainonporn.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/12/media-2x3-staff.jpg" width="552" /><br />
Freed from any oversight and now self-employed, Prause added <a href="http://liberoscenter.com/" title="http://liberoscenter.com/">two media managers/promoters from <i>Media 2×3</i></a> to her company’s tiny stable of “Collaborators.” <a href="https://media2x3.com/">Their job</a> is to <a href="https://liberoscenter.com/media/">place articles</a> in the press <a href="https://media2x3.com/category/nikky-prause/" title="https://media2x3.com/category/nikky-prause/">featuring Prause</a>, and find her <a href="https://liberoscenter.com/media/">speaking engagements</a> in pro-porn and mainstream venues. Odd behavior for a supposedly impartial scientist.<br />
<br />
Prause began to put her name to falsehoods, openly cyber-harassing
multiple individuals and organizations on social media and elsewhere.
Since Prause’s primary target was Gary Wilson (hundreds of social media
comments along with behind the scenes email campaigns), it became
necessary to monitor and document Prause’s tweets and posts. This was
done for her victims’ protection, and crucial for any future legal
actions.<br />
<br />
It soon became apparent that Prause’s tweets and comments were rarely
about sex research, neuroscience, or any other subject related to her
claimed expertise. In fact, the vast majority of Prause’s posts could be
divided into two overlapping categories:<br />
<ol>
<li>Defamatory & <i>ad hominem</i> comments targeting individuals
and organizations that she labeled as “anti-porn activists” (often
claiming to be a victim of these individuals and organizations).</li>
<li>Support of the porn industry:
<ul>
<li>direct support of the FSC (Free Speech Coalition), AVN (Adult Video Network), porn producers, performers, and their agendas</li>
<li>countless misrepresentations of the state of pornography research and attacks on porn studies or porn researchers</li>
</ul>
</li>
</ol>
<b><a href="https://www.yourbrainonporn.com/relevant-research-and-articles-about-the-studies/critiques-of-questionable-debunking-propaganda-pieces/is-nicole-prause-influenced-by-the-porn-industry/" target="_blank">This page</a> </b>contains a sampling of tweets and comments related to #2 –
her vigorous support of the porn industry and its chosen positions.
After years of sitting on the evidence, YBOP is of the view that
Prause’s unilateral aggression has escalated to such frequent and
reckless defamation (falsely accusing her many victims of “physically
stalking her,” “misogyny,” “encouraging others to rape her,” and “being
neo-nazis”), that we are compelled to examine her possible motives. The
page is divided into 3 main sections:<br />
<ol>
<li><a href="https://www.yourbrainonporn.com/relevant-research-and-articles-about-the-studies/critiques-of-questionable-debunking-propaganda-pieces/is-nicole-prause-influenced-by-the-porn-industry/#porn"><b>SECTION 1</b>: Nicole Prause & the porn industry.</a></li>
<li><a href="https://www.yourbrainonporn.com/relevant-research-and-articles-about-the-studies/critiques-of-questionable-debunking-propaganda-pieces/is-nicole-prause-influenced-by-the-porn-industry/#pornhelps"><b>SECTION
2</b>: Was Nicole Prause “PornHelps”? (PornHelps website, @pornhelps on
Twitter, comments under articles). All accounts deleted once Prause was
outed as “PornHelps”.</a></li>
<li><a href="https://www.yourbrainonporn.com/relevant-research-and-articles-about-the-studies/critiques-of-questionable-debunking-propaganda-pieces/is-nicole-prause-influenced-by-the-porn-industry/#misrepresent"><b>SECTION
3</b>: Examples of Nicole Prause supporting porn industry interests via
misrepresentation of the research & attacking studies/researchers.</a></li>
</ol>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br />
<ul>
</ul>
</div>
Concerned Observershttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17481437202179154037noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6124915000554403951.post-6162491616342007532013-07-16T14:04:00.000-07:002013-07-29T10:57:55.508-07:00Porn Study: Does Viewing Explain Doing—Or Not?<span class="print-link"><span class="print_html"><a class="print-page" href="http://yourbrainonporn.com/print/book/export/html/1920" rel="nofollow" title="Display a printer-friendly version of this page."></a></span></span><br />
<div class="field field-name-body field-type-text-with-summary field-label-hidden">
<div class="field-items">
<div class="field-item even">
<i><img alt="teens" class="media-image" height="87" src="http://d3tn233v01gkf3.cloudfront.net/sites/yourbrainonporn.com/files/styles/small/public/teenagers4.jpg?itok=o8s9rkQE" style="float: right;" width="145" /><b>Porn alters sexual behavior; so do other things</b></i><br />
<br />
A new Dutch study ("<a href="http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/jsm.12157/abstract" title="Does Viewing Explain Doing? Assessing the Association Between Sexually Explicit Materials Use and Sexual Behaviors in a Large Sample of Dutch Adolescents and Young Adults">Does
Viewing Explain Doing? Assessing the Association Between Sexually
Explicit Materials Use and Sexual Behaviors in a Large Sample of Dutch
Adolescents and Young Adults</a>") finds porn use correlates with risky sexual behavior in 15 to 25-year olds...and that other things do as well.<br />
<br />
Surely this finding is unsurprising, unexceptionable and unworthy of wide publicity.<br />
<br />
However, the casual reader glancing at noisy headlines and related
quotations gets the impression that everyone should shrug off the
effects of Internet porn use as totally uninteresting, and just move
along. That was certainly the conclusion of the editors at AVN<sup>®</sup> Media Network, Inc ("the definitive source for all that is adult entertainment."): <a href="http://business.avn.com/articles/video/Study-Results-Downplay-Porn-s-Influence-on-Teen-Behavior-514545.html#comments" title="Study Results Downplay Porn’s Influence on Teen Behavior">Study Results Downplay Porn's Influence on Teen Behavior</a>, <i>Time</i>: <a href="http://healthland.time.com/2013/04/25/suggestive-study-porn-may-be-less-terrible-for-young-people-than-previously-thought/?iid=ent-main-mostpop2" title="Study: Porn May Not Be Such a Bad Influence on Sexual Behavior">Study: Porn May Not Be Such a Bad Influence on Sexual Behavior</a>, and <i>Huffpo</i>: <a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/04/25/porn-use-impact-sexual-behavior-study_n_3157359.html?ir=Women" title="Porn Use Impacts Sexual Behavior Less Than You Might Think, Says Study">Porn Use Impacts Sexual Behavior Less Than You Might Think, Says Study</a>.<br />
<br />
Lead study author Gert Martin Hald, a clinical psychologist at the University of Copenhagen, opined:<br />
<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
"Pornography is not as big and bad a wolf as we thought it was,
and maybe we should focus on other factors. It explains a portion of
sexual behavior, but it is modest,"</blockquote>
Actually, porn <i>is </i>a "big and bad wolf" if it's the reason
your erection isn't happening (more in a moment). In any case, the
study's actual conclusions are far from headline-worthy;<br />
<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
"This study suggests that, when controlling for important other
factors, Sexually Explicit Material (SEM) consumption influences sexual
behaviors. The small to moderate associations that emerged between SEM
consumption and sexual behavior after controlling for other variables
suggest that SEM is just one factor among many that may influence youth
sexual behaviors."</blockquote>
<br />
The take away: Porn use can encourage certain risky sexual behaviors,
yet other factors can also. This finding does not tell us anything
about young users' overall sexuality, such as relationship contentment,
sexual function or sexual pleasure. More important, these findings have
nothing to say about the <a href="http://www.yourbrainonporn.com/rebooting-accounts" target="_blank" title="rebooting accounts">myriad negative symptoms</a> young porn users describe, or the <a href="http://www.reuniting.info/download/pdf/0.BENEFITS.pdf" target="_blank" title="benefits PDF">many benefits</a> they report when they eliminate porn.<br />
<br />
<h3>
Delving deeper</h3>
<br />
Curious about how such a ho-hum finding could garner such commanding
headlines, we took a closer look. The study has even less to recommend
it than we initially assumed. First, the study is not representative, as
the researchers acknowledge. It relied on online volunteers, 70% of
whom were women (only 5% of whom used porn once a week or more).<br />
<br />
The researchers only analyzed subjects who had engaged in sexual
activities. This may seem like an obvious essential criterion since the
study was examining "sexual behavior." However, the "sexual behavior"
that many of today's young (male) porn users complain about is <i>inability </i>to engage in normal sexual behavior. That's why they are experimenting with giving up Internet porn.<br />
<br />
They report loss of attraction to real partners, <a href="http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/cupids-poisoned-arrow/201107/porn-induced-sexual-dysfunction-growing-problem" title="Porn-Induced Sexual Dysfunction: A Growing Problem">sexual performance problems</a> (<a href="http://www.doctoroz.com/videos/can-porn-cause-erectile-dysfunction-pt-1" target="_self" title="Dr. Oz Show: PIED">ED</a>, <a href="http://www.yourbrainonporn.com/any-suggestions-for-healing-delayed-ejaculation" target="_blank" title="Any suggestions for healing delayed ejaculation (DE)?">DE</a>, <a href="http://nymag.com/news/features/70976/" target="_blank" title="He’s Just Not That Into Anyone">inability to orgasm with partner</a>), <a href="http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/cupids-poisoned-arrow/201209/porn-masturbation-and-mojo-neuroscience-perspective" title="Porn, Masturbation and Mojo: A Neuroscience Perspective">crippling social anxiety</a>,
etc. With their sexual prowess not up to snuff, few of these guys even
have the option of engaging in risky sex, which sometimes drives their
increasing dependence on porn. Some are still virgins—and extremely
unhappy about it. They would have been excluded from this study
entirely.<br />
<br />
In other words, loud headlines claiming that Internet porn use has
little effect on sexual behavior create a false impression that sexual
wellbeing is not much impaired by Internet porn use. Yet the only sexual
behaviors the researchers actually quantified were:<br />
<ul>
<li><i>Adventurous Sex</i>: (i) experience with threesomes; (ii) sex with a same sex partner; and (iii) real-life sex with a partner met online; </li>
<li><i>Partner Experience</i><b>:</b> (i) age at first
intercourse (in years); (ii) experience with one-night stands; and (iii)
lifetime number of different sexual partners (1 = 1 partner; 7 = 20+
partners).</li>
<li><i>Transactional Sex</i>: (i) ever been paid/paid for sex (in money or in kind).</li>
</ul>
Many of the heavy Internet porn users <a href="http://www.yourbrainonporn.com/external-rebooting-blogs-threads" target="_blank" title="External Rebooting Blogs & Threads">whose stories we read</a> online would love to say "yes" to one or more of the behaviors listed above, but they're out of the game due to <a href="http://www.yourbrainonporn.com/Young%20Porn%20Users%20Need%20Longer%20To%20Recover%20Their%20Mojo%3A%20Is%20high-speed%20porn%20use%20rewiring%20adolescent%20sexuality" target="_blank" title="http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/cupids-poisoned-arrow/201209/young-porn-users-need-longer-recover-their-mojo">severe symptoms</a> stemming from overconsumption of porn. These symptoms include finding <a href="http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/cupids-poisoned-arrow/201201/why-do-i-find-porn-more-exciting-partner" target="_blank" title="Why Do I Find Porn More Exciting Than A Partner?">porn use easier</a> than pursuing real mates and even full-fledged, incapacitating addiction.<br />
<br />
Some users do act out, inspired by porn. They show up in <a href="http://www.yourbrainonporn.com/external-rebooting-blogs-threads" target="_blank" title="External Rebooting Blogs & Threads">the forums we follow</a> because they're concerned that, as everyday stimuli lose the ability to arouse their sexual response, they're <a href="http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/cupids-poisoned-arrow/201110/can-you-trust-your-johnson" target="_blank" title="Can You Trust Your Johnson? Is Internet porn making male sexuality more plastic?">escalating to sexual stimuli</a> and behaviors that "<a href="http://www.yourbrainonporn.com/ask-us-iam-attracted-to-gay-transsexual" target="_blank" title="I'm straight, but attracted to transexual or gay porn. What's up?">aren't really me</a>,"
or that they don't want to have to engage in just to get off. In
keeping with this phenomenon, the researchers in the current study noted
that the search for sexual sensation indeed appears to be driving the
risky behaviors:<br />
<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
"Notably, for both genders, all three sexual behavior categories
were highly significantly associated with sexual sensation seeking."</blockquote>
<br />
Those who act out appear to be a relatively small percentage of the
users complaining about porn-induced problems. More users report that
porn use inhibits participation in real sex.<br />
<br />
<h3>
A distorted picture?</h3>
<br />
So if there are more users acting out at one end of the spectrum and
users with unnatural inhibition at the other, what's really going on? Is
<a href="http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/cupids-poisoned-arrow/201108/porn-then-and-now-welcome-brain-training" target="_blank" title="Porn Then and Now: Welcome to Brain Training">today's porn</a>
driving some people toward riskier behavior, while others are shut out
due to porn use? Are these two groups partially canceling each other out
because they're at opposite ends of the bell curve in the study's
results? If so, the study may offer a distorted picture of the effects
of Internet porn on sexual behavior.<br />
<br />
Incidentally, the study data was gathered in 2008 and 2009. That's a
long time ago in the world of porn and porn-inspired sexual activity.
For example, <i>Grindr</i>, the pioneer facilitator of online-assisted casual hook-ups, only went live in 2009.<br />
<br />
Back then, smartphones (and porn access) were not ubiquitous. Nor was the use of porn tube sites, which users often say <a href="http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/cupids-poisoned-arrow/201301/are-porn-tube-sites-causing-erectile-dysfunction" title="Are Porn Tube Sites Causing Erectile Dysfunction?">ratcheted up their porn use</a>.
It remains to be seen what effect these recent developments will have
on the connection between porn use and (impaired) sexual behavior.</div>
</div>
</div>
Concerned Observershttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17481437202179154037noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6124915000554403951.post-70622552179607028732013-07-16T12:32:00.000-07:002019-01-15T08:22:11.585-08:00Study: Porn Users Report Narrower Emotional Range<i><b>SPAN Lab porn study obscures results with study title </b></i><br />
<br />
Results in a study by <a href="https://yourbrainonporn.com/nicole-prauses-pdf-her-span-lab-website" target="_blank">SPAN Lab</a> entitled, "<a href="http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/10720162.2013.772874#preview" title="No Evidence of Emotion Dysregulation in “Hypersexuals” Reporting Their Emotions to a Sexual Film">No Evidence of Emotion Dysregulation in “Hypersexuals” Reporting Their Emotions to a Sexual Film</a>," align with what <a href="https://www.yourbrainonporn.com/can-porn-use-blunt-my-emotions" target="_blank">some ex-porn users are reporting</a>. Namely, that porn curtailed their emotional range.
However, the title of SPAN Lab's study obscures this finding. (More
below.)<br />
<br />
<h3>
The study</h3>
<br />
The study compared the emotional range of so-called "hypersexuals"
with controls in response to viewing a 3-minute nature film and a
3-minute sex film. The lab's working hypothesis for the study was that
"hypersexuals" would report higher levels of both positive and negative
emotions compared with controls. That is, after viewing the sex film,
the "hypersexuals" were predicted to show high levels of positive
emotions, such as sexual arousal or excitement, as well as high levels
of negative emotions, such as embarrassment or anxiety. The authors call
the <i>simultaneous</i> experience of greater positive and negative emotions in the face of a stimulus "coactivation."<br />
However, the researchers said:<br />
<ul>
<li>"This study actually found evidence for the <i>opposite</i> pattern: those complaining of difficulty regulating their viewing of "porn" (VSS) had <i>less</i> mixed emotional responses to sexual films than those who did not report problems regulating their viewing."</li>
<li>"Persons complaining of problems regulating their viewing of visual sexual stimuli exhibited <i>less</i> coactivation of positive and negative affect than controls."</li>
<li>"The effects actually were in the <i>opposite</i> of the predicted direction, not merely weaker." (Emphasis added)</li>
</ul>
<h3>
Wrong hypothesis?</h3>
<br />
SPAN Lab researchers admit that there are no prior studies on which
to base their hypothesis that today's problem porn users should have
experienced greater positive and negative emotional response to a sexual
film.<br />
<ul>
<li>"Research concerning hypersexuality has not yet specified
exactly when emotion dysregulation is thought to occur, and clinical
publications conflict as to when emotion dysregulation is expected."</li>
<li>"There is no accepted measure of 'level of coactivation.'”</li>
</ul>
They used a theoretical sexual-addiction model (developed prior
to the Internet, and based on assumptions about addicts who act out with
real people), claiming that,<br />
<ul>
<li> "Many proponents of a “hypersexual disorder” suggest that affect dysregulation is a key feature of the disorder."</li>
</ul>
There is no citation for this statement, and there's <a href="http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/cupids-poisoned-arrow/201111/porn-addiction-is-not-sex-addiction-and-why-it-matters" target="_blank" title="Porn Addiction Is Not Sex Addiction--And Why It Matters">reason to question</a> whether classic sex-addiction concepts necessarily apply to today's Internet porn addicts.<br />
<br />
Isn't it likely that SPAN Lab's hypothesis was simply backward, and that the <i>controls </i>were
predictably more likely to show the wider range of emotions (they in
fact showed)? After all, the researchers clearly stated that an earlier
study had found that it is <i>normal</i> to have a wide range of positive and negative emotions in response to erotic films:<br />
<ul>
<li>"In general, sexual stimuli tend to produce high coactivation of
negative and positive feelings in response to sexual stimuli.(Peterson
& Janssen, 2007)."</li>
</ul>
In other words, the controls were perfectly normal. It was the
problem porn users who were out of alignment and showed less
coactivation. Interestingly, numbed emotions are a common complaint of
heavy Internet porn viewers—although most of them don't realize porn
muted their emotions until well after they quit using it. Here are
typical comments by ex-users showing the loss of highs and lows:<br />
<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
First guy: "Once you quit the porn and the fapping you gotta
accept the emotions you'll feel. For me it was loneliness, sadness,
neediness, etc. But these pass as you become more comfortable with
yourself. The highs you feel are augmented and feel higher than before.
The lows are augmented too and you nosedive further than before. Fapping
to porn just kept me numb to the world but now I feel human emotions
better than ever before."<br />
<br />
Second guy: "The thing about quitting porn, is that it
cures the numbness. For me, all of the colors came back into my life.
Music started sounding better, movies would make me cry (nobody make
fun, or I'll kick your butt! ;) ); I laugh a lot more; I have way more
fun in social settings, etc. I went through a nasty period of sadness.
But later, everything started falling into place, and ALL of your
emotions become stronger. Don't worry, though, as time goes by, life
just keeps getting more and more awesome!"</blockquote>
<br />
<h3>
Wrong theoretical basis and poor methodology.</h3>
<h3>
</h3>
<b>UPDATE: </b>The subjects in this study appear to be the same subjects used in two later studies published by SPAN Lab. A the bottom of the page you can read the myriad problems outlined in these two later critiques of SPAN lab studies:<br />
<ol>
<li><a href="http://pornstudyskeptics.blogspot.com/2013/07/uclas-span-lab-touts-empty-porn-study.html" target="_blank">STUDY ONE</a></li>
<li><a href="http://pornstudycritiques.com/analysis-of-modulation-of-late-positive-potentials-by-sexual-images-in-problem-users-and-controls-inconsistent-with-porn-addiction-2015-by-span-lab/" target="_blank">STUDY TWO</a> </li>
</ol>
The researchers used sexual-addiction theory from decades ago, as
well as the term "hypersexuals," thereby implying that they are
discovering useful information about sex addicts—without using the term.
They also imply that these people, popularly regarded as "porn
addicts," don't have the dysregulated emotions of sex addicts (and
therefore perhaps are not addicts at all). Yet there are several
problems with this effort:<br />
<br />
<b><i>No addiction screening</i></b><br />
The researchers did not pre-screen the participants for <a href="http://www.reuniting.info/download/pdf/s-IAT_english.pdf" target="_blank" title="Internet porn addiction test">Internet porn addiction</a>,
so we can't be sure their participants are addicts. "Hypersexual" and
"difficulty controlling porn use" are vague terms in comparison with an
actual Internet porn addiction designation via a screening test. If the
researchers are going to suggest that they're discovering things about
Internet porn addicts they need to start by screening for porn
addiction.<br />
<br />
<b><i>Need homogeneous participants</i></b><br />
The researchers need to investigate homogeneous participants, rather
than a mix of men and women of various sexual orientations. A 3-minute
heterosexual film might have widely different effects, depending upon
participants' sexual orientation and current porn tastes. For example, a
lesbian porn addict might experience aversion when watching the
heterosexual porn film, thus skewing overall results. Sorting out
emotional responses in addicts is a <a href="http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23380484" title="Cue-induced cigarette craving and mixed emotions: a role for positive affect in the craving">highly nuanced endeavor</a>.<br />
<br />
<b>
</b><b><i>Classic sexual addiction theory irrelevant</i></b><br />
Today's young Internet users often don't fit the classic sex
addiction model, which was based on childhood trauma and shame. They are
perfectly at ease with porn use, which many believe is beneficial. The
average age of the problem porn users in this study was only 24, making
them quite likely members of <a href="http://jar.sagepub.com/content/23/1/6.abstract" target="_blank" title="Generation XXX: Pornography Acceptance and Use Among Emerging Adults">Generation XXX</a>.<br />
<br />
Thus, it's not clear that these participants would exhibit classic
emotions such as anxiety or embarrassment (negative emotions) even if
addicted. Indeed, is there any sound reason to think that young porn
addicts viewing a 3-minute erotic movie in the lab, who have even been
told not to masturbate, would be triggered to feel any negative emotions
due to the film clip?<br />
In any case, labeling Internet porn addicts as "hypersexuals" doesn't render them subject to <i>sex</i> addicts' (purported) emotional responses. Again, the researchers' hypothesis is weak.<br />
<br />
<b><i>Key addiction neuroscience concepts ignored</i></b><br />
The researchers give no indication that they understand the difference between "<a href="http://yourbrainonporn.com/rewire-your-brain-using-ocd-neuroscience" target="_blank" title="Unwiring & Rewiring Your Brain: Sensitization and Hypofrontality">sensitization</a>" and "<a href="http://www.yourbrainonporn.com/desensitization-numbed-pleasure-response" target="_blank" title="Desensitization: A Numbed Pleasure Response">desensitization</a>," or the importance of designing their research around these key neurochemical characteristics of addiction.<br />
<br />
Porn addictions can be very specific and <a href="http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/cupids-poisoned-arrow/201110/can-you-trust-your-johnson" target="_blank" title="Can You Trust Your Johnson? Is Internet porn making male sexuality more plastic?">tied to particular fetishes</a>. They often involve rather extreme porn because <a href="http://www.reuniting.info/download/pdf/0.TOLERANCE.pdf" target="_blank" title="TOLERANCE.pdf">many porn addicts escalate</a> as they <a href="http://www.yourbrainonporn.com/why-did-my-porn-use-escalate" target="_blank" title="Why did my porn use escalate?">need edgier material</a>
to become aroused. Visual triggers for their unique cues can cause a
powerful reaction, while visual cues that don't serve as triggers may be
of milder interest. <a href="http://www.yourbrainonporn.com/why-am-i-still-noticing-a-dopamine-rush-after-rebooting" target="_blank" title="Why do porn cues still trigger a rush (sensitization)?">Hyper-reactivity to specific cues</a> is known as "sensitization."<br />
<br />
On the other hand, "desensitization" refers to <a href="http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/cupids-poisoned-arrow/201009/intoxicating-behaviors-300-vaginas-lot-dopamine" target="_blank" title="Intoxicating Behaviors: 300 Vaginas = A Lot of Dopamine">decreased responsiveness to stimuli</a> <i>not</i> tied directly to an addiction. This overall numbed pleasure response has been observed in <a href="http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21499141" target="_blank" title="Reduced Striatal Dopamine D2 Receptors in People With Internet Addiction (2011)">Internet addicts</a>, <a href="http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/cupids-poisoned-arrow/201010/protect-your-appetite-pleasure" target="_blank" title="Protect Your Appetite for Pleasure">food addicts</a> and <a href="http://yourbrainonporn.com/garys-research-addiction-gambling" target="_blank" title="Gambling Addiction - YBOP">gambling addicts</a>.
It's quite likely that the same mechanism that numbs these other
behavioral addicts to normal pleasure (and satisfaction) is also
narrowing porn addicts' range of emotional responses to porn visuals.<br />
<br />
Incidentally, changes in dopamine levels and dopamine sensitivity
appear to be one factor behind the "desensitization" phenomenon. For
example, <a href="http://ajp.psychiatryonline.org/article.aspx?articleID=177775" title="Subjective Experiences During Dopamine Depletion">consider the experience</a>
of this healthy young medical student, who voluntarily had his dopamine
response blocked with a drug, and experienced profound, temporary
changes:<br />
<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
"After 7 hours, Mr. A felt more distance between himself and his
environment. Stimuli had less impact; visual and audible stimuli were
less sharp. He experienced a loss of motivation and tiredness. After 18
hours, he had difficulty waking up and increasing tiredness;
environmental stimuli seemed dull. He had less fluency of speech."</blockquote>
<br />
The point is that it would be a rare generic 3-minute lab film that
would elicit an accurate measure of positive and negative emotions for
today's Internet porn addicts. For some it would be dull (or <a href="http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20576388" target="_blank" title="Neural circuits of disgust induced by sexual stimuli in homosexual and heterosexual men: an fMRI study.">even aversive if it doesn't match their sexual orientation</a>).
For others it would be mildly arousing. Yet others might be highly
sensitized to (aroused by) some aspect of it. However, it still might
not reflect their emotional range after a full, private porn session
with visuals of their own choice.<br />
<br />
Ideally, researchers would choose a stimulus that matches each
addict's addiction—namely, each subject's preferred genre of porn.<br />
<br />
In any case, research that doesn't ascertain whether it is <a href="http://yourbrainonporn.com/watching-pornographic-pictures-internet-role-sexual-arousal-ratings-and-psychological-psychiatric" target="_blank" title="Watching Pornographic Pictures on the Internet: Role of Sexual Arousal Ratings and Psychological-Psychiatric Symptoms for Using Internet Sex Sites Excessively (2011)">recording addicts' "sensitized" reactions</a> or their <a href="http://yourbrainonporn.com/reduced-striatal-dopamine-transporters-people-internet-addiction-disorder-2012" target="_blank" title="Reduced Striatal Dopamine Transporters in People with Internet Addiction Disorder (2012)">numbed "desensitized" reactions</a>
can't tell us much. Again, the general pattern for addicts is to be
somewhat numb to everyday stimuli, and hyper-aroused to cues that tap
into their particular addiction.<br />
<br />
<h3>
In conclusion</h3>
<br />
All of the possible confounds need to be controlled for before SPAN
Lab can discover useful things about emotional dysregulation in problem
porn users.<br />
<br />
The lab may also want to choose more realistic hypotheses, and match
their titles to their actual results. For example, a more accurate title
for this study would have been, "<i>Problem Porn Users Show Narrower Range Of Emotional Responses To Visual Sexual Stimuli Than Controls</i>."<br />
<br />
----------------------------------------------<br />
<br />
<h2>
THE PROBLEMS WITH THE SUBJECTS</h2>
<br />
<i><b>It appears that the above study, Steele et al (2013), and Prause et al (2015) used many of the same subjects. The following is excerpted from a critique of Steele et al. </b></i><br />
<br />
A major claim by Steele et al is that the<i> lack of correlations</i>
between subjects EEG readings (P300) and certain questionnaires means
porn addiction doesn't exist. Two major reasons account for the lack of
correlation:<br />
<ol>
<li>The researchers chose vastly different subjects (women, men,
heterosexuals, non-heterosexuals), but showed them all standard,
possibly uninteresting, male+female sexual images.<b> Put simply,
the results of this study were dependent on the premise that males,
females, and non-heterosexuals are no different in their response to
sexual images. </b>This is clearly not the case (below).</li>
<li>The two questionaires Steele et al. relied upon in both EEG studies
to assess "porn addiction" are not validated to screen for internet porn
use/addiction. In the press, Prause repeatedly pointed to the lack of
correlation between EEG scores and "hypersexuality" scales, but there is
no reason to expect a correlation in porn addicts.</li>
</ol>
<b><a href="https://www.blogger.com/null" id="diversity" name="diversity"><span data-mce-style="text-decoration: underline;">Unacceptable Diversity Of Test Subjects</span></a>:</b>
The researchers chose vastly different subjects (women, men,
heterosexuals, non-heterosexuals), but showed them all standard,
possibly uninteresting, male+female porn. This matters, because it
violates standard procedure for addiction studies, in which researchers
select <i>homogeneous</i> subjects in terms of age, gender, orientation, even similar IQ's (<i>plus</i> a homogeneous control group) in order to avoid distortions caused by such differences.<br />
This is especially critical for studies like this one, which measured
arousal to sexual images, as research confirms that men and women have
significantly different brain responses to sexual images or films. This
flaw alone explains the lack of correlations between EEG readings and
questionnaires. Previous studies confirm significant differences between
males and females in response to sexual images. See, for example:<br />
<ul>
<li><a data-mce-="" href="http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23519591">Gender Differences in Sexual Arousal and Affective Responses to Erotica.</a></li>
<li><a href="http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22450197">Sex differences in brain activation to emotional stimuli: a meta-analysis of neuroimaging studies</a></li>
<li><a href="http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8561662">Habituation of female sexual arousal to slides and film.</a></li>
<li><a data-mce-="" href="http://www.yourbrainonporn.com/skin-sympathetic-nerve-activity-humans-during-exposure-emotionally-charged-images-sex-differences">Skin sympathetic nerve activity in humans during exposure to emotionally-charged images: sex differences</a></li>
<li><a href="http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23643564">The late
positive potential (LPP) in response to varying types of emotional and
cigarette stimuli in smokers: a content comparison</a></li>
<li><a href="http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25971857">Sex differences in interactions between nucleus accumbens and visual cortex by explicit visual erotic stimuli: an fMRI study.</a></li>
<li><a href="http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15129155">Affective picture perception: gender differences in visual cortex?</a></li>
<li><a href="http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18719987">Sex-specific content preferences for visual sexual stimuli.</a></li>
<li><a href="http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18343987">Sex differences in patterns of genital sexual arousal: measurement artifacts or true phenomena?</a></li>
<li><a href="http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17362952">Sex differences in viewing sexual stimuli: an eye-tracking study in men and women</a></li>
<li><a href="http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15004563">Men and women differ in amygdala response to visual sexual stimuli</a></li>
<li><a href="http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22406875">Effects of
gender and relationship context in audio narratives on genital and
subjective sexual response in heterosexual women and men.</a></li>
<li><a href="http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17668312">Sex differences in visual attention to erotic and non-erotic stimuli</a></li>
<li><a href="http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2739403/">Sex Differences in Response to Visual Sexual Stimuli: A Review</a></li>
<li><a href="http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18006098">Skin conductance responses to visual sexual stimuli.</a></li>
</ul>
Can we be confident that a <i>non-heterosexual </i>has the
same enthusiasm for male-female porn as a heterosexual male? No, and
his/her inclusion could distort EEG averages rendering meaningful
correlations unlikely. See, for example, <a data-mce-="" href="http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20576388" target="_blank">Neural circuits of disgust induced by sexual stimuli in homosexual and heterosexual men: an fMRI study.</a><br />
<br />
Surprisingly, Prause herself stated in <a href="http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/14681994.2012.660141#preview" target="_blank" title="Clinical and research concerns with vibratory stimulation: a review and pilot study of common stimulation devices">an earlier study (2012)</a> that individuals vary tremendously in their response to sexual images:<br />
<blockquote>
"Film stimuli are vulnerable to individual differences in
attention to different components of the stimuli (Rupp & Wallen,
2007), preference for specific content (Janssen, Goodrich, Petrocelli,
& Bancroft, 2009) or clinical histories making portions of the
stimuli aversive (Wouda et al.,1998)."</blockquote>
<blockquote>
"Still, individuals will vary tremendously in the visual cues that
signal sexual arousal to them (Graham, Sanders, Milhausen, &
McBride, 2004)."</blockquote>
In a <a href="http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23835845" target="_blank" title="Biases for Affective Versus Sexual Content in Multidimensional Scaling Analysis: An Individual Difference Perspective.">Prause study</a> published a few weeks before this one she said:<br />
<blockquote>
"Many studies using the popular International Affective
Picture System (Lang, Bradley, & Cuthbert, 1999) use different
stimuli for the men and women in their sample."</blockquote>
Maybe Prause should read her own statements to discover the reason
why her current EEG readings varied so much. Individual differences are
normal, and large variations are to be expected with a sexually diverse
group of subjects.<br />
<br />
<a href="https://www.blogger.com/null" id="irrelevant" name="irrelevant"><u><b>Irrelevant Questionnaires:</b></u></a><b> </b>The SCS (<a href="https://www.chip.uconn.edu/chipweb/documents/Research/K_SexualCompulsivityScale.pdf" target="_blank">Sexual Compulsivity Scale</a>) cannot assess Internet-porn addiction. It was created in 1995 and designed with uncontrolled sexual <i>relations</i> in mind (in connection with investigating the AIDS epidemic). The <a href="http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8609589/" target="_blank" title="Sexual Compulsivity Scale">SCS says</a>:<br />
<blockquote>
"The scale has been should [shown?] to predict rates of
sexual behaviors, numbers of sexual partners, practice of a variety of
sexual behaviors, and histories of sexually transmitted diseases."</blockquote>
Moreover, the SCS's developer warns that this tool won't show psychopathology in women:<br />
<blockquote>
"Associations between sexual compulsivity scores and
other markers of psychopathology showed different patterns for men and
women; sexual compulsivity was associated with indexes of
psychopathology in men <b>but not in women.</b>"</blockquote>
Furthermore, the SCS includes partner-related questions that
Internet-porn addicts might score quite differently compared with sex
addicts, given that compulsive porn users often have a far <a href="http://onania.org/asm/post/13003" target="_blank" title="Onania support group">greater appetite for cyber erotica</a> than actual sex.<br />
<br />
Like the SCS, the second hypersexuality questionnaire (<a href="http://https//books.google.com/books?id=gUnbAAAAQBAJ&lpg=PA148&ots=Ks2cLmarht&lr&pg=PA150#v=onepage&q&f=true" target="_blank" title="CBSOB - hypersexuality">the CBSOB</a>)
has no questions about Internet porn use. It was designed to screen for
"hypersexual" subjects, and out-of-control sexual behaviors - not
strictly the overuse of sexually explicit materials on the internet.<br />
<br />
Another questionnaire the researchers administered is the PCES (Pornography Consumption Effect Scale), which has been called a "<a href="http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/cupids-poisoned-arrow/201306/pornography-consumption-effect-scale-useful-or-not" target="_blank" title="Pornography Consumption Effect Scale">psychometric nightmare</a>," and there's no reason to believe it can indicate anything about Internet porn addiction <i>or</i> sex addiction.<br />
<br />
Thus, the lack of correlation between EEG readings and these
questionnaires contributes no support to the study's conclusions or the
author's claims.<br />
<br />
<b><a href="https://www.blogger.com/null" id="screen" name="screen"><u>No Pre-Screening</u></a>:</b>
Prause's subjects were not pre-screened. Valid addiction brain studies
screen out individuals with pre-existing conditions (depression, OCD,
other addictions, etc.). This is the only way responsible researchers
can draw conclusions about addiction. See the <a href="http://www.yourbrainonporn.com/cambridge-university-brain-scans-find-porn-addiction" target="_blank">Cambridge study</a> for an example of proper screening & methodology.<br />
<br />
Prause's subjects were also not pre-screened for porn addiction.
Standard procedure for addiction studies is to screen subjects with an
addiction test in order to compare those who test positive for an
addiction with those who do not. These researchers did not do this, even
though an <a href="http://www.reuniting.info/download/pdf/s-IAT_english.pdf" target="_blank" title="s-IAT ">Internet porn-addiction test exists</a>. Instead, researchers administered the Sexual Compulsivity Scale <i>after</i> participants were already chosen. As explained, the SCS is not valid for porn addiction or for women.<br />
<br />
<b><u>Use of Generic Porn For Diverse Subjects</u>:</b>
Steele et al. admits that its choice of "inadequate" porn may have
altered results. Even under ideal conditions, choice of test porn is
tricky, as porn users (especially addicts) often escalate through a
series of tastes. <a href="http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/cupids-poisoned-arrow/201110/can-you-trust-your-johnson" target="_blank" title="Can You Trust Your Johnson?">Many report</a> having little sexual response to porn genres that do not match their porn-<i>du-jour</i>—including
genres that they found quite arousing earlier in their porn-watching
careers. For example, much of today's porn is consumed via
high-definition videos, and the stills used here may not elicit the same
response.<br />
<br />
Thus, the use of generic porn can affect results. If a porn
enthusiast is anticipating viewing porn, reward circuit activity
presumably increases. Yet if the porn turns out to be some boring
heterosexual pictures that don't match his/her current genre or stills
instead of high-definition fetish videos, the user may have little or no
response, or <a href="http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20576388" target="_blank">even aversion</a>. "What was <i>that</i>?"<br />
<br />
This is the equivalent of testing the cue reactivity of bunch of food
addicts by serving everyone a single food: baked potatoes. If a
participant doesn't happen to like baked potatoes, she must not have a
problem with eating too much, right?<br />
<br />
A valid addiction "brain study" must: 1) have homogenous subjects and
controls, 2) screen out other mental disorders and other addictions,
and 3) use validated questionnaires and interviews to assure the
subjects are actually porn addicts. Steele et al. did none of these, yet
drew vast conclusions and published them widely.<br />
--------------------------------------------------- <br />
<!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<w:WordDocument>
<w:View>Normal</w:View>
<w:Zoom>0</w:Zoom>
<w:TrackMoves/>
<w:TrackFormatting/>
<w:PunctuationKerning/>
<w:ValidateAgainstSchemas/>
<w:SaveIfXMLInvalid>false</w:SaveIfXMLInvalid>
<w:IgnoreMixedContent>false</w:IgnoreMixedContent>
<w:AlwaysShowPlaceholderText>false</w:AlwaysShowPlaceholderText>
<w:DoNotPromoteQF/>
<w:LidThemeOther>EN-US</w:LidThemeOther>
<w:LidThemeAsian>X-NONE</w:LidThemeAsian>
<w:LidThemeComplexScript>X-NONE</w:LidThemeComplexScript>
<w:Compatibility>
<w:BreakWrappedTables/>
<w:SnapToGridInCell/>
<w:WrapTextWithPunct/>
<w:UseAsianBreakRules/>
<w:DontGrowAutofit/>
<w:SplitPgBreakAndParaMark/>
<w:DontVertAlignCellWithSp/>
<w:DontBreakConstrainedForcedTables/>
<w:DontVertAlignInTxbx/>
<w:Word11KerningPairs/>
<w:CachedColBalance/>
</w:Compatibility>
<w:BrowserLevel>MicrosoftInternetExplorer4</w:BrowserLevel>
<m:mathPr>
<m:mathFont m:val="Cambria Math"/>
<m:brkBin m:val="before"/>
<m:brkBinSub m:val="--"/>
<m:smallFrac m:val="off"/>
<m:dispDef/>
<m:lMargin m:val="0"/>
<m:rMargin m:val="0"/>
<m:defJc m:val="centerGroup"/>
<m:wrapIndent m:val="1440"/>
<m:intLim m:val="subSup"/>
<m:naryLim m:val="undOvr"/>
</m:mathPr></w:WordDocument>
</xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<w:LatentStyles DefLockedState="false" DefUnhideWhenUsed="true"
DefSemiHidden="true" DefQFormat="false" DefPriority="99"
LatentStyleCount="267">
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="0" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="Normal"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="9" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="heading 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="9" QFormat="true" Name="heading 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="9" QFormat="true" Name="heading 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="9" QFormat="true" Name="heading 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="9" QFormat="true" Name="heading 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="9" QFormat="true" Name="heading 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="9" QFormat="true" Name="heading 7"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="9" QFormat="true" Name="heading 8"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="9" QFormat="true" Name="heading 9"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="39" Name="toc 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="39" Name="toc 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="39" Name="toc 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="39" Name="toc 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="39" Name="toc 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="39" Name="toc 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="39" Name="toc 7"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="39" Name="toc 8"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="39" Name="toc 9"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="35" QFormat="true" Name="caption"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="10" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="Title"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="1" Name="Default Paragraph Font"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="11" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="Subtitle"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="22" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="Strong"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="20" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="Emphasis"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="59" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Table Grid"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Placeholder Text"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="1" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="No Spacing"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="60" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Shading"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="61" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light List"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="62" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Grid"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="63" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="64" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="65" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="66" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="67" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="68" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="69" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="70" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Dark List"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="71" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Shading"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="72" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful List"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="73" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Grid"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="60" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Shading Accent 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="61" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light List Accent 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="62" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Grid Accent 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="63" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 1 Accent 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="64" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 2 Accent 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="65" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 1 Accent 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Revision"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="34" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="List Paragraph"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="29" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="Quote"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="30" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="Intense Quote"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="66" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 2 Accent 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="67" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 1 Accent 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="68" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 2 Accent 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="69" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 3 Accent 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="70" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Dark List Accent 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="71" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Shading Accent 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="72" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful List Accent 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="73" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Grid Accent 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="60" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Shading Accent 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="61" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light List Accent 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="62" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Grid Accent 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="63" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 1 Accent 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="64" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 2 Accent 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="65" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 1 Accent 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="66" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 2 Accent 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="67" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 1 Accent 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="68" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 2 Accent 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="69" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 3 Accent 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="70" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Dark List Accent 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="71" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Shading Accent 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="72" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful List Accent 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="73" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Grid Accent 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="60" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Shading Accent 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="61" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light List Accent 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="62" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Grid Accent 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="63" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 1 Accent 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="64" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 2 Accent 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="65" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 1 Accent 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="66" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 2 Accent 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="67" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 1 Accent 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="68" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 2 Accent 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="69" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 3 Accent 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="70" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Dark List Accent 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="71" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Shading Accent 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="72" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful List Accent 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="73" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Grid Accent 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="60" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Shading Accent 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="61" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light List Accent 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="62" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Grid Accent 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="63" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 1 Accent 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="64" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 2 Accent 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="65" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 1 Accent 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="66" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 2 Accent 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="67" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 1 Accent 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="68" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 2 Accent 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="69" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 3 Accent 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="70" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Dark List Accent 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="71" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Shading Accent 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="72" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful List Accent 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="73" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Grid Accent 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="60" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Shading Accent 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="61" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light List Accent 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="62" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Grid Accent 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="63" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 1 Accent 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="64" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 2 Accent 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="65" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 1 Accent 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="66" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 2 Accent 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="67" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 1 Accent 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="68" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 2 Accent 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="69" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 3 Accent 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="70" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Dark List Accent 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="71" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Shading Accent 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="72" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful List Accent 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="73" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Grid Accent 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="60" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Shading Accent 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="61" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light List Accent 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="62" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Grid Accent 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="63" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 1 Accent 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="64" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 2 Accent 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="65" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 1 Accent 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="66" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 2 Accent 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="67" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 1 Accent 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="68" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 2 Accent 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="69" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 3 Accent 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="70" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Dark List Accent 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="71" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Shading Accent 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="72" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful List Accent 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="73" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Grid Accent 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="19" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="Subtle Emphasis"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="21" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="Intense Emphasis"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="31" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="Subtle Reference"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="32" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="Intense Reference"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="33" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="Book Title"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="37" Name="Bibliography"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="39" QFormat="true" Name="TOC Heading"/>
</w:LatentStyles>
</xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 10]>
<style>
/* Style Definitions */
table.MsoNormalTable
{mso-style-name:"Table Normal";
mso-tstyle-rowband-size:0;
mso-tstyle-colband-size:0;
mso-style-noshow:yes;
mso-style-priority:99;
mso-style-qformat:yes;
mso-style-parent:"";
mso-padding-alt:0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt;
mso-para-margin-top:0in;
mso-para-margin-right:0in;
mso-para-margin-bottom:10.0pt;
mso-para-margin-left:0in;
line-height:115%;
mso-pagination:widow-orphan;
font-size:11.0pt;
font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
mso-ascii-font-family:Calibri;
mso-ascii-theme-font:minor-latin;
mso-hansi-font-family:Calibri;
mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin;
mso-bidi-font-family:"Times New Roman";
mso-bidi-theme-font:minor-bidi;}
</style>
<![endif]-->
<br />
<h4 class="MsoNoSpacing">
Much has transpired since July, 2013. </h4>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing">
UCLA did not renew
Nicole Prause’s contract (early 2015). No longer an academic Prause has <a href="https://www.yourbrainonporn.com/book/nicole-prauses-unethical-harassment-and-defamation-of-gary-wilson-others/">engaged
in multiple documented incidents harassment and defamation</a> as part of an
ongoing “astroturf” campaign to persuade people that anyone who disagrees with
her conclusions deserves to be reviled. Prause has accumulated a <a href="https://www.yourbrainonporn.com/nicole-prauses-pdf-her-span-lab-website">long
history</a> of harassing authors, researchers, therapists, reporters and others
who dare to report evidence of harms from internet porn use. She appears to be<a href="https://www.yourbrainonporn.com/relevant-research-and-articles-about-the-studies/critiques-of-questionable-debunking-propaganda-pieces/is-nicole-prause-influenced-by-the-porn-industry/">
quite cozy with the pornography industry</a>, as can be seen from this <a href="https://twitter.com/iafdcom/status/745823086818136064" target="_blank">image
of her (far right) on the red carpet of the X-Rated Critics Organization (XRCO)
awards ceremony</a>. (According to Wikipedia the <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/XRCO_Award">XRCO Awards</a> are given by
the American <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/X-Rated_Critics_Organization">X-Rated
Critics Organization</a> annually to people working in adult entertainment and
it is the only adult industry awards show reserved exclusively for industry
members.<sup><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/XRCO_Award#cite_note-1">[1]</a></sup>).
It also appears that Prause may have <a href="https://twitter.com/JRAxxx/status/959895710039715840">obtained porn
performers as subjects</a> through another porn industry interest group, the <a href="https://www.freespeechcoalition.com/" target="_blank">Free Speech
Coalition.</a> The FSC subjects were allegedly used in her hired-gun study on
the <a href="https://www.bloomberg.com/news/features/2018-06-18/the-dark-side-of-onetaste-the-orgasmic-meditation-company">heavily
tainted</a> and <a href="https://onetaste.us/courses/surrender-retreat/purchase" target="_blank">very commercial “Orgasmic Meditation” scheme</a>. Prause has
also made <a href="https://www.yourbrainonporn.com/relevant-research-and-articles-about-the-studies/critiques-of-questionable-debunking-propaganda-pieces/nicole-prauses-unethical-harassment-and-defamation-of-gary-wilson-others/#research" target="_blank">unsupported claims</a> about <a href="https://www.yourbrainonporn.com/relevant-research-and-articles-about-the-studies/porn-use-sex-addiction-studies/analysis-of-sexual-desire-not-hypersexuality-is-related-to-neurophysiological-responses-elicited-by-sexual-images-steele-et-al-2013/#1">the
results of her studies</a> and her <a href="https://www.yourbrainonporn.com/relevant-research-and-articles-about-the-studies/critiques-of-questionable-debunking-propaganda-pieces/nothing-adds-up-in-dubious-study-youthful-subjects-ed-left-unexplained-by-gabe-deem#prause">study’s
methodologies</a>. For much more documentation, see:<b> <a href="https://www.yourbrainonporn.com/relevant-research-and-articles-about-the-studies/critiques-of-questionable-debunking-propaganda-pieces/is-nicole-prause-influenced-by-the-porn-industry/">Is
Nicole Prause Influenced by the Porn Industry?</a></b></div>
Concerned Observershttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17481437202179154037noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6124915000554403951.post-51816310359712252182013-07-13T21:31:00.000-07:002018-09-03T07:33:35.995-07:00Self-perceived effects of pornography consumption (2008), Hald GM, Malamuth NM.<h2>
Pornography Consumption Effect Scale: Useful or Not?</h2>
<i>PCES yields peculiar results measuring self-perceived effects of porn</i><br />
<br />
<i> <strong>Update: In this 2018 presentation Gary Wilson exposes the truth behind 5 questionable and misleading studies, including this study<em></em>: <a href="https://vimeo.com/272453173">Porn Research: Fact or Fiction?</a></strong> </i><br />
<br />
This post addresses a psychometric tool (questionnaire) known as the <i>Pornography Consumption Effect Scale</i> (PCES). Several studies have employed it, the most well-known of which concluded that "<a href="http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17851749" title="Self-perceived effects of pornography consumption">Young Danish adults</a> [18-30] believe that pornography has had primarily a positive effect on various aspects of their lives."<br />
<br />
The study only measures "self-perceived" effects of porn. This is like
asking a fish what it thinks of water, or like asking someone how her
life has been altered by growing up in Minnesota. Indeed, asking young
adults about porn's effects is not unlike walking into a bar at 10pm and
asking all the patrons how beer is affecting their Friday night. Such
an approach doesn't isolate porn's effects. In contrast, comparing
users' reports with the reports of non-users or following people who
quit porn would do more to reveal porn's actual effects.<br />
<br />
On its face, the outcome that young Danes liked porn is not shocking
(although upon closer inspection, some of the study's conclusions are
highly suspect). The study came out in 2007, and the data was gathered a
decade ago, in 2003—before <a href="http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/cupids-poisoned-arrow/201301/are-porn-tube-sites-causing-erectile-dysfunction" target="_blank" title="Are Porn Tube Sites Causing Erectile Dysfunction?">streaming porn videos on tube sites</a>, before wireless was universal, and before smartphones. Reports of <a href="http://www.yourbrainonporn.com/rebooting-accounts" target="_blank" title="Rebooting Acoounts - YBOP">severe porn-related symptoms</a>
(especially among younger users) have increasingly been surfacing for
the last half dozen years. A decade ago, it's quite possible that young
Danish adults using porn <i>weren't</i> noticing much in the way of
problems. Internet porn could well have been looked upon as a welcome
masturbation aid, or at least an innocuous one.<br />
As the finding that young Danes deemed porn use beneficial seemed not
unreasonable for its era, we hadn't bothered to read the entire study
or look at the PCES questionnaire—until it was employed in a more recent
study. When we actually looked at the PCES we were dumbfounded. It
seems to be a measure of little but its creators' enthusiasm for
demonstrating that porn use is "positive," and some of its conclusions
are beyond belief. Consider the following:<br />
<br />
<i>1. </i>First, this study,<i> "found that both men and women
generally reported small to moderate positive effects of hardcore
pornography consumption and little, if any, negative effects of such
consumption." </i><br />
In other words, porn use was always beneficial with few, if any, drawbacks.<br />
<br />
<i>2. </i>Further,<i> "After all the variables were entered in the equation, <span style="text-decoration: underline;">three sexual background variables</span> made statistically significant contributions <span style="text-decoration: underline;">to the positive effects</span>: Greater pornography consumption, more perceived realism of pornography and higher frequency of masturbation." </i><br />
<ul>
<li>In other words the more pornography you use, the more real you
believe it is, and the more you masturbate to it, the more positive the
effects in every area of your life.</li>
<li>Applying the researchers' conclusions, if you are a 30 year-old shut
in who masturbates to hardcore porn 5 times a day, porn is making a
particularly positive contribution to your life.</li>
<li>By the way, the PCES results actually did <i>not</i> support the
statement that perceiving porn as real is beneficial. Quite the contrary
as you can see from the in-depth analysis of the study data below this
post.</li>
</ul>
<i>3. </i>Most remarkably of all,<i> "The report of overall positive effect of consumption generally was found to be<span style="text-decoration: underline;"> strongly and positively correlated in <b>a linear fashion</b> </span>with amount ofhardcore pornography consumption."</i><br />
<ul>
<li>So, the more hardcore the porn the greater its positive effects
in your life. Attention 15-year olds: Watch the most extreme, violent
porn you can find so you, too, can experience benefits.</li>
<li>Notice that the researchers are not even saying there's a <a href="http://www.anseo.net/wp-content/uploads/2012/12/bell_curve.gif" target="_blank" title="a bell curve diagram">bell curve</a>,
where too much would be detrimental as compared with moderate use.
Their finding is that, "More is always better." Astounding, no?</li>
</ul>
How could 3 variables—the harder the porn, the more you think it's real (<i>sic</i>)<i>,</i> and the more you masturbate to it—always be associated with greater benefits?<br />
<br />
First, nowhere else in nature does "More is always better" show up.
More food, more water, higher concentration of oxygen, more vitamins,
more minerals, more sun, more sleep, more exercise....there comes a
point in all things that <i>more</i> causes negative effects, or even death. So how could this single stimulus be a radical exception? It can't.<br />
<br />
Second, if all you have ever known is porn use, you have no idea how
it is affecting you until you quit (and usually not for months
afterward).<br />
<br />
Third, the PCES questions are geared to find that "more is always better."<br />
<br />
<b>Applying the PCES questions to life</b><br />
<br />
Put yourself in the position of many young, male porn users of today.
You have seen every kind of porn imaginable in high-resolution video,
and vanilla genres no longer arouse you. You are also suffering from one
or more of these widely reported symptoms: loss of attraction to real
potential mates, erectile sluggishness or delayed ejaculation with real
partners, escalation to confusing porn tastes, and perhaps even
uncharacteristic social anxiety and lack of motivation. But you've never
quit using porn for long enough to find out, or even <i>suspect</i>, whether any of those symptoms are related to your porn use.<br />
<br />
Given your circumstances, could you end up with anything less than a
positive score on the PCES? We don't think so. 7 is the maximum score
for any question. Of the 47 PCES questions, 27 (the majority) are
"positive." This occurs because the researchers assume that "sexual
knowledge" can only be positive. Thus, the 7 "extra" sexual knowledge
questions have no counterparts. This is an interesting assumption, as
we've seen many porn users report that they have seen and learned things
from porn that they fervently wish they could forget.<br />
<br />
In any case, how might the young hypothetical porn user described above score these sample "positive" questions?<br />
<br />
14. ____ Has added to your knowledge of anal sex? <i>"Hell yes! =7"</i><br />
15. ____ Has positively affected your view of the opposite gender? <i>"I guess so. Porn stars are hot. =6"</i><br />
28. ____ Overall, has been a positive supplement to your sex life? <i>"Yes, I never masturbate without it. =7"</i><br />
45. ____ Has made you more sexually liberal? <i>"Absolutely. =7"</i><br />
Here are some of the 20 "negative" questions:<br />
2. ____ Has made you less tolerant towards sex? <i>"Are you kidding? I watch sex for hours every week. =1"</i><br />
25. ____ Has reduced your quality of life? <i>"I can't imagine life without my porn, so no. =1"</i><br />
40. ____ Has led to problems in your sex life? <i>"No, I'm a virgin. =1"</i><br />
46. ____ Generally, has given you performance anxiety when you are sexually active on your own (e.g., during masturbation)? <i>"Are you kidding? 'Course not. =1"</i><br />
<a href="http://www.reuniting.info/download/pdf/PCES.Q.pdf" title="Pornography Consumption Effect Scale">View entire test</a>.<br />
<br />
The researchers then divided users' answers into several categories:
1) Sex Life, 2) Attitudes Toward Sex, 3) Sexual Knowledge, 4)
Perception/Attitudes Toward Women, 5) Life in General. Unlike the Sexual
Knowledge category, the other 4 categories had both "positive" and
"negative" questions. For these categories, the researchers reported
whether the positive average was higher than the negative average. In
fact, they give us the differences between "positive" and "negative"
question averages for the 4 categories, without showing us the <i>actual</i>
averages of the young Danes. In other words, for all we know the
response to some "positive" questions could have been lukewarm, but the
associated "negative" question scores were so low that the spread
between them was wide enough to give a false picture that the Danes felt
quite positive about porn, when, in fact, they may not have felt porn
was all that beneficial, but simply didn't see much in the way of
downside to its use.<br />
<br />
If this is incomprehensible, see the explanation below—supplied by a
senior professor who frequently peer reviews psychology research. He
also points out that, in contradiction to the researchers' theory that
men perceive fewer negative effects from porn use than women, men
actually reported significantly higher <i>negative</i> effects than
women in two areas: Sex Life and Life in General. The researchers don't
discuss these findings, which obviously didn't influence their
porn-positive conclusions. Yet we find them interesting because in the
intervening years male highspeed porn users have increasingly reported <a href="http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/cupids-poisoned-arrow/201107/porn-induced-sexual-dysfunction-growing-problem" target="_blank" title="Porn-Induced Sexual Dysfunction: A Growing Problem">sexual performance problems</a> and <a href="http://yourbrainonporn.com/what-are-the-symptoms-of-excessive-porn-use" title="What are the symptoms of excessive Internet porn use?">other symptoms</a> that make life less enjoyable.<br />
<br />
Apart from the technical issues alluded to above, here are some of the conceptual problems that concern us about the PCES:<br />
<ol>
<li>Reduced quality of life, damage to relationships, and a
nonexistent sex life, are on equal footing in the PCES with learning
more about sexual practices and more liberal attitudes toward sex.</li>
<li>Many guys have been using porn since puberty (or even before) but
have never had real sex. They can't possibly know how it has affected
their views of the opposite gender or their sex lives. Compared with
what? For these guys, many PCES questions are the equivalent of asking
how being <i>your</i> mother's child affected your life.</li>
<li>Most guys don't fully realize what symptoms were associated with
their porn use until months after they stop using it, so even if they
are having <a href="http://www.yourbrainonporn.com/what-are-the-symptoms-of-ex" target="_blank" title="What are the symptoms of excessive Internet porn use?">severe symptoms</a> (<a href="http://www.yourbrainonporn.com/any-suggestions-for-healing-delayed-ejaculation" target="_blank" title="Any suggestions for healing delayed ejaculation (DE)?">delayed ejaculation</a>, <a href="http://www.yourbrainonporn.com/erectile-dysfunction-question" target="_blank" title="Is my erectile dysfunction (ED) related to my porn use?">erectile dysfunction</a>, <a href="http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/cupids-poisoned-arrow/201110/can-you-trust-your-johnson" target="_blank" title="Can You Trust Your Johnson? Is Internet porn making male sexuality more plastic?">morphing sexual tastes</a>, <a href="http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/cupids-poisoned-arrow/201201/why-do-i-find-porn-more-exciting-partner" target="_blank" title="Why Do I Find Porn More Exciting Than A Partner?">loss of attraction to real partners</a>, <a href="http://www.yourbrainonporn.com/is-porn-making-my-social-anxiety-worse" target="_blank" title="Is porn making my social anxiety/confidence/depression worse?">severe uncharacteristic anxiety</a>, <a href="http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/cupids-poisoned-arrow/201212/no-porn-better-working-memory" target="_blank" title="No Porn, Better Working Memory? Research finds porn imagery lowers cognitive function">concentration problems</a>, or <a href="http://www.yourbrainonporn.com/is-porn-making-my-social-anxiety-worse" target="_blank" title="Is porn making my social anxiety/confidence/depression worse?">depression</a>),
few current users would connect such symptoms with Internet porn
use—especially given the vague terms the PCES employs: "harm" "quality
of life."</li>
</ol>
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. In fact, if you are one of the vanishing species of
human who hasn't used Internet porn, your PCES score could easily imply
that not using porn is having detrimental effects on your life because
you might only know about vanilla sex practices. As one recovering porn
user said after viewing the PCES:<br />
<blockquote>
"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."</blockquote>
Another guy:<br />
<blockquote>
"I know how to insert a dildo in an anus expertly, but my
kids are living in another town because of what my ex found on our
computer."</blockquote>
<b>Encourage researchers to ask the important questions</b><br />
Where are the studies asking the most at-risk group (young men) the
questions that would reveal the kinds of symptoms they are increasingly
reporting today? Such as,<br />
<ul>
<li>"Can you masturbate to climax <i>without</i> Internet porn?"</li>
<li>"Have you become less socially active since you began using Internet porn?"</li>
<li>"Are you still able to climax to Internet porn genres you began with?"</li>
<li>"Have you escalated to Internet porn genres that you find disturbing?"</li>
<li>"Have you begun to question your sexual orientation since you began using Internet porn?"</li>
<li>"When you compare your erections during Internet porn use to your
erections with a real partner do you notice problems with the latter?"</li>
<li>"When you compare your ability to climax during Internet porn use to
your ability to climax with a real partner do you notice problems with
the latter?" </li>
</ul>
Fortunately, research coming from neuroscientists is revealing the brain changes that accompany <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XvyejdlmKpE&feature=youtu.be" title="Adolescent Brain Meets Highspeed Internet Porn - slideshow">sexual conditioning</a> and <a href="http://yourbrainonporn.com/garys-research-addiction-video-game" title="Recent Internet Addiction Studies Include Porn">overconsumption of Internet stimulation</a>.
It's becoming apparent that no matter how many artful questionnaires
are constructed to persuade the public that Internet porn use is
"positive," if users are reporting sexual performance problems, other
severe symptoms, and addictions that resolve when they quit porn, such
questionnaires are inadequate in important ways. For many of today's
highspeed porn users, porn is proving "<a href="http://www.yourbrainrebalanced.com/index.php?board=5.0" target="_blank" title="yourbrainrebalanced - porn ED">sex-negative</a>."<br />
<br />
The conflict between authorities is a good reminder that <i>normative</i> isn't necessarily a guarantee of <i>normal</i>.
It's a very short step between "normative" and the implication that a
common behavior is also "normal," or even "healthy." Yet "normal"
actually means <i>within the parameters of healthy functioning</i>. No
matter how many people are engaging in a behavior or how much they like
it, if it produces pathology, legitimate medical researchers would not
label the result "normal." Think smoking in the 1960s. Today, urologists
are reporting surprising numbers of young guys with ED, a pathology
that many <a href="http://www.doctoroz.com/videos/can-porn-cause-erectile-dysfunction-pt-1" title="Can Porn Cause Erectile Dysfunction?">healthcare givers</a> and <a href="http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/cupids-poisoned-arrow/201209/young-porn-users-need-longer-recover-their-mojo" title="Young Porn Users Need Longer To Recover Their Mojo">ex-porn users</a> are connecting with overconsumption of Internet porn.<br />
<br />
Anyone interested in pornography's effects would be wise to read
beyond headlines and conclusions based on PCES questionnaire results.
Analyze the entire study. Did the researchers ask questions that would
have uncovered the severe symptoms some of today's porn users are
reporting? Did they compare users to former users, so as to see the
effects of removing the porn-use variable? Did they ask questions that
would primarily only elicit, for example, porn-positive data? Was the
evidence gathered and analyzed responsibly? Did researchers screen their
subjects for addiction, using a test such as the new <a href="http://www.reuniting.info/download/pdf/s-IAT_english.pdf">s-IAT</a> (short-form Internet Addiction Test) developed by this <a href="http://www.uni-due.de/kognitionspsychologie/team.shtml" title="Informatik und Angewandte Kognitionswissenschaft">German team</a>?<br />
<br />
<b>Just because you like it doesn't make it good for you</b><br />
Above all, be skeptical of porn studies based on self-perceived
effects. These can tell us nothing about porn's actual positive and
negative outcomes, yet they make scientific-sounding, reassuring
headlines, which heavy porn users often rely on to rationalize continued
use despite warning signs and symptoms. See, for example the more
recent "<a href="http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs10508-013-0115-z#page-1" target="_blank" title="Abstract - Self-Appraisals of Arousal-Oriented Online Sexual Activities in University and Community Samples">Self-Appraisals of Arousal-Oriented Online Sexual Activities in University and Community Samples</a>."
It employed a shortened version of the PCES, and, not surprisingly,
found that participants reported greater positive than negative outcomes
from their porn use.<br />
<br />
The danger of such studies is that they subtly promote the mistaken
belief that "If I like porn enough, it's having a positive effect on
me." This is on a par with creating a study that reassures kids that if
they like sugar-coated cereal enough it's good for them.<br />
<hr />
<h3>
"The study is a psychometric nightmare"</h3>
<h4>
<i>A senior professor at a major university, who frequently peer
reviews psychology research, heightened our concerns about the PCES
methodology:</i></h4>
A major problem with <a href="http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17851749" title="Self-perceived effects of pornography consumption">this study</a>
is that the researchers decided they could create "positive" and
"negative" effect scales in a priori fashion simply based on the wording
of the items. This led them to conduct factor analyses at the level of
their pre-determined positive and negative scales rather than at the
level of the individual items. Had they done an item-level factor
analysis, they might have found that items addressing the same area (sex
life, life in general, etc.) all loaded on the same factor rather than
on separate positive and negative factors. If this result had been
obtained, this means the items are assessing a continuum of
negativity-positivity rather than separate positive and negative
effects. And if that was the result, it would be impossible to interpret
whether the mean score truly indicated more positivity than negativity.<br />
<br />
Just because a mean score is above the mid-point (e.g. > 24 on an
8-item, 7-step Likert scale where scores can vary from 8 to 56), this
does not mean that the score indicates a genuinely positive effect.
Self-reports can't be accepted at face value this way. If they could,
and we asked a group of people to rate their own intelligence, we would
find that people are generally above average in intelligence. The
researchers seem to be aware of this problem, as they discuss the issue
of first- versus third person perceptions of media influence in the
introduction of the article. Then they go ahead and take
self-perceptions and self-reports at face value.<br />
<br />
... Using t-tests to compare the means is problematic. Indeed, you
can compute t-tests and get results such as those reported in Table 4.
But that doesn't mean that the results make sense. For example, take the
1.15-point difference in mean scores for Life in General for males. <b>The researchers do not report actual means, only mean differences</b>,
so let me make up some means. Let's say the sample had a mean score of
24.15 on the positive Life in General scale and 23.00 on the negative
Life in General scale (both are 4-item, 7-step Likert scales, so scores
can vary from 4 to 28). For this to be a sensible difference, a score of
23 or 24 or whatever on one scale would have to represent the same
degree of magnitude on the other scale. But we do not know that, for the
same reasons that a score above the midpoint cannot be assumed to be
"above average." Furthermore, <b>we do not know if the means were 24.15 versus 23.00 or something like 6.15 versus 5.00,</b> <b>which would surely merit a different interpretation.</b><br />
<br />
In short, <b>if I had been a reviewer on this manuscript, I
would have probably rejected it on the basis of inadequate statistical
methodology as well as various conceptual problems. ... It is
impossible, given the nature of the data, to draw firm conclusions.</b><br />
<br />
[We asked a few follow-up questions]<br />
First, the researchers created a Sexual Knowledge scale as one of
their components of the "positive effects dimension" because they
assumed that more sexual knowledge is always a good thing. Unlike the
other four components of positive effects, there is no corresponding
negative version of Sexual Knowledge. As far as I can tell, the only
analysis where they left out the Sexual Knowledge scale was when they
conducted t-tests between the positive and negative versions of each
construct (Table 4). This was out of necessity—there was no negative
Sexual Knowledge to compare with positive Sexual Knowledge.<br />
<br />
You didn't ask, but I can't help but comment on this Sexual Knowledge scale. Obviously, <b>high
scores on the scale reflect only participants' perceptions of obtaining
knowledge, which is no guarantee that these perceptions represent
accurate knowledge</b>. Good luck to the guy who thinks he has
learned what women like by watching pornography. Second, although
personally I think that having knowledge is almost always a more
positive thing than not having knowledge, who knows whether or not there
should be a negative analog to the positive Sexual Knowledge scale? I
can even imagine some items, e.g., "I saw some things I wished I had not
seen." "I learned some things I wish I hadn't." <b>The researchers made a lot of assumptions about what is "positive,"</b> probably based on Danish culture (e.g., being experimenting, being sexually liberal).<br />
<br />
Concerning your question about scale validity, this is a fundamental
concept in psychological measurement, but one that even many
professionals have failed to grasp. To say that the PCES was validated
by the Hald-Malamuth study is absolutely fatuous. One cannot test the
validity of a psychological measure with a single study. Assessing the
validity of a psychological measure requires years of programmatic
research involving multiple investigations. It is actually a
never-ending process, where we learn more and more about a measure's
validity, but never establish a final figure for the validity of a
psychological test (like "the test is 90% valid").<br />
<br />
The definitive explanation of psychological test validation is a 1955
article by Lee Cronbach and Paul Meehl. Read and understand it and you
will know more about psychological test validity than most
psychologists: <a href="http://psychclassics.yorku.ca/Cronbach/construct.htm" target="_blank">http://psychclassics.yorku.ca/Cronbach/construct.htm</a> .<br />
<br />
Here's a short summary of the Cronbach-Meehl classic: To say that a
measure of a psychological construct possesses validity is to say that
differences in scores on the measure correspond to other measurements in
a manner predicted by the theory underlying the construct. We therefore
assess the validity of a psychological test by administering it to
groups of people, gathering other information our theory says is
relevant to the construct allegedly represented by the test, and examine
whether the scores on the test correspond to the other information as
predicted by the theory. Results of validation are usually mixed, with
some supporting and some disconfirming findings, which is one reason why
we can't establish for all time exactly how valid a test is. It is a
matter of the preponderance of confirming versus disconfirming evidence.
Even when results are negative, we cannot say for sure whether the
psychological test lacks validity or whether there is something wrong
with the theory that made the prediction. Test validation is
theory-testing as understood generally in science.<br />
<br />
<b>In the Hald-Malamuth study, there was actually very little
test validation, despite a long section with the heading "Validation of
the Pornography Consumption Questionnaire (PCQ)."</b> According to
Hald and Malamuth's informal theory of positive and negative effects
from pornography, there are different kinds of perceived positive and
negative effects, and the different types of positive effects should
intercorrelate with each other, as should the different kinds of
negative effects. Tables 1 and 2 present results that confirm this
prediction, so this can be regarded as some support for the validity of
the PCQ. The researchers also claimed that the positive and negative
effects are absolutely independent of one another (meaning they should
correlate zero), but <b>they do not report correlations between the
five positive effects scales and four negative effects scales in Tables
1 and 2. I suspect they are hiding disconfirming information</b>.
They do report that the sum of all positive PCQ scales correlates only r
= .07 with the sum of all negative PCQ scales, but I wonder why they
withheld information on the correlations among the different five kinds
of positive effects and four kinds of negative effects.<br />
<br />
Hald and Malamuth report, as they should, reliability estimates for
their scales, and these numbers are all excellent. But reliability is
not validity. A scale can be perfectly reliable but still not have good
validity. Reliability and validity are both essential properties of
psychological tests, but they are two entirely different things.<br />
<br />
Hald and Malamuth then report tests of three hypotheses that are
relevant to their theory of perceived positive and negative effects of
pornography and therefore have some bearing on the validity of the PCQ.
Their first hypothesis is that perceived positive effects are greater
than perceived negative effects. I stand by what I wrote previously
about these analyses, reported in Table 4: it was inappropriate for the
researchers to conduct t-tests comparing the means of each positive
effect with the means of the corresponding negative effect, because we
cannot assume that a mean of "3" on a positive effect scale has the same
meaning as a "3" on the corresponding negative effect scale. Perhaps
the participants were more willing to report positive than negative
effects because pornography is condoned in Denmark. So maybe a "3" on a
negative effects scale is more like a "4" on a positive effects scale.
We just do not know, and there is no way to know from the way the data
were gathered. So <b>the results reported in Table 4 must be taken with a very large grain of salt</b>, maybe an entire salt shaker.<br />
<br />
I noticed <b>the authors played a funny trick in Table 4,
comparing the positive and negative effects. Instead of reporting means
for both the positive and negative scales (as they do for sex
differences in Table 5), they report only mean <span style="text-decoration: underline;">differences</span>.</b>
For example, the mean difference between overall positive and negative
effects for men is 1.54. You have to go to Table 5 to see that this 1.54
is the difference between 2.84 for overall positive effect for men and
1.30 for overall negative effect in men. Sure, the difference of 1.54 is
statistically significant and substantial according to Cohen's D (but
only if we assume that a positive scale 3 = a negative scale 3).
However, let's look at the absolute value of the positive effect score,
2.84 on a 1-7 scale. Since 4 is the mid-point, half-way between 1 (not
at all) and 7 (to an extremely large extent), 2.84 is not very positive
in an absolute sense.<br />
<br />
<b>The researchers' second hypothesis was that men would report more positive and fewer negative effects than women</b>. The results supported the prediction about men reporting more positive effects. However, <b>in
contradiction to their theory, men also reported significantly higher
negative effects [than women] in two areas: sex life and life in general</b>.
Either there is a problem with the validity of their scales or with
their theory that men perceive fewer negative effects than women. What
do you think?<br />
<br />
Finally, the researchers reasonably hypothesize that background
factors might be related to perceived effects of pornography, and some
of these factors did correlate as predicted. The largest correlation for
positive effects is with pornography consumption, r = .51. <b>The heaviest users tend to report the most positive effects</b>. As the researchers themselves acknowledge, <b>this
correlational finding can't tell us the degree to which consuming more
pornography actually creates positive effects versus heavy consumption
leading to rationalizing and wanting to believe in positive effects</b>. For the record, <b>although the researchers do not discuss this, Table 6 also shows a positive correlation between consumption and negative effects</b>, r = .10. It is smaller, but statistically significant.<br />
One
thing the researchers got completely wrong (backwards, in fact) is the
relation between degree of realism in pornography and positive effects.
Table 6 shows that it is a negative relation (r = -.25), and this is
confirmed by a negative beta weight ( β = -.22) in the regression
analysis in Table 7. The negative correlation means that <b>the more realistic the porn, the <span style="text-decoration: underline;">less</span>
positive the perceived effect. But the authors of the article go on and
on describing the opposite (wrong) interpretation, that realism is
related to positive effects</b>. Whoops!<br />
<br />
I hope these comments are helpful. I'd be happy to respond to any more questions you have. (Emphasis added)Concerned Observershttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17481437202179154037noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6124915000554403951.post-57402795133360173392013-07-13T14:16:00.000-07:002013-07-21T14:16:33.023-07:00Rethinking Ogas and Gaddam's 'A Billion Wicked Thoughts' <b><i>Does Internet porn reveal our sexual desires—or alter them?</i></b><br />
<b><i> </i></b>
<br />
Fellow "Psychology Today" blogger Leon F. Seltzer recently completed a
herculean 12-part blog series on the subject of the Internet and human
sexual desire (based on Ogi Ogas and Sai Gaddam’s <i>A Billion Wicked Thoughts</i>, 2011). In his<a href="http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/evolution-the-self/201206/internet-porn-its-problems-perils-and-pitfalls" target="_blank" title="Internet Porn: Its Problems, Perils, and Pitfalls"> final segment</a>, he did an excellent job of outlining the risks associated with Internet porn use.<br />
<br />
However, I hope he will take another look at Ogas and Gaddam's
assumptions and analysis in light of the perils of today's Internet
porn. Specifically, I hope he will reconsider whether <i>A Billion Wicked Thoughts </i>actually delivers what he suggests it does, namely, the "unvarnished truth of [our] sexual preferences and desires."<br />
<br />
It's quite possible that <i>A Billion Wicked Thoughts</i> delivers
something quite different: a snapshot of a moving target of millions of
users' random sexual tastes, many of whom are heavily under the
influence of a neurobiological process that Ogas and Gaddam have not
considered. <b>That process is </b><i><b>tolerance</b></i><b>, a physiological process common to brains as they slip into addiction</b>—whereby the user becomes increasingly numb to pleasure (desensitized) and therefore seeks more and more stimulation.<br />
<br />
For example, some users search for one video for a few minutes a few times a week. Analyzing their results <i>might </i>yield
some meaningful data about porn tastes across the population. Other
users open 10+ tabs on a couple of screens and edge to video after
video, primarily in search of novelty because the dopamine squirts from
novelty produce a drug-like effect in the brain. Obviously, this group
will be contributing disproportionately to the search statistics.
Moreover, as we'll see in a moment, their tastes often quickly morph as
they pursue novelty any way they can. This limits the value of their
data when analyzing fundamental sexual desires across all users.<br />
<br />
In other words, the lion's share of searches could well be coming
from a disproportionately small number of users, and yet neither Ogas
and Gaddam nor their readers seem to recognize this. The authors'
attempt to draw far-reaching conclusions from the content of such
searches is like analyzing a client's psychological make-up based on
whether he became addicted to drugs via sniffing or shooting up.
Incidentally, it's the novelty seekers who have the most serious
problems from their porn use according to <a href="http://www.yourbrainonporn.com/internet-porn-test-for-psychological-personality-factors-2010" target="_blank" title="Watching Pornographic Pictures on the Internet: Role of Sexual Arousal Ratings and Psychological-Psychiatric Symptoms for Using Internet Sex Sites Excessively">German researchers</a>. This is consistent with the suggestion that addiction-related brain changes are at work in their brains.<br />
<br />
No one knows how many of today's users are driven by tolerance, but
it's likely the percentage is large enough that Ogas and Gaddam's data
do not, in fact, reveal deep, meaningful patterns about human sexual
desire.<br />
<br />
I'm grateful to Seltzer for initiating this dialog. Ever since <i>Wicked Thoughts </i>came
out, I've had reservations about its assumptions. My reply will be
divided into two parts. This part addresses the tolerance issue. A
subsequent post addresses the <i>Wicked Thoughts' </i>underlying assumption; namely, that sexual tastes are immutable.<br />
<br />
<h3>
Desensitization and morphing porn tastes</h3>
<br />
In his book on brain plasticity, <a href="http://www.recoverypath.ca/UserFiles/File/Acquring%20tastes.pdf" target="_blank" title="Link to chapter on sex from 'The Brain That Changes Itself'"><i>The Brain That Changes Itself</i></a>, psychiatrist Norman Doidge pointed out that,<br />
<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
"Pornography seems, at first glance, to be a purely instinctual
matter: sexually explicit pictures trigger instinctual responses, which
are the product of millions of years of evolution. But if that were
true, pornography would be unchanging. The same triggers, bodily parts
and their proportions, that appealed to our ancestors would excite us.
This is what pornographers would have us believe, for they claim they
are battling sexual repression, taboo, and fear and that their goal is
to liberate the natural, pent-up sexual instincts.<br />
<br />
But in fact the content of pornography is a <span style="text-decoration: underline;">dynamic</span>
phenomenon that perfectly illustrates the progress of an acquired
taste. ... The plastic influence of pornography on adults can ... be
profound, and those who use it have no sense of the extent to which
their brains are reshaped by it.</blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
[I have] treated or assessed a number of men who all had
essentially the same story. Each had acquired a taste for a kind of
pornography that, to a greater or lesser degree, troubled or even
disgusted him, had a disturbing effect on the pattern of his sexual
excitement, and ultimately affected his relationships and sexual
potency. ...<br />
<br />
<b>When pornographers boast that they are pushing the
envelope by introducing new, harder themes, what they don't say is that
they must, because their customers are building up a tolerance to the
content. </b><b>(emphasis added)"</b></blockquote>
<br />
Thus, a heterosexual male might start with nude stills of a favorite
movie star. Then, as his brain stops responding to those, he
"progresses" to videos of solo sex, vanilla sex, lesbian action,
insertions, gang bangs, transexual porn, gay porn, gross porn (however
he defines that) and even minor porn. Gay porn users and female porn
users report the same phenomenon, with progressions that are equally
unsettling to them. A gay man shared this experience under an <a href="http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/cupids-poisoned-arrow/201110/can-you-trust-your-johnson" target="_blank" title="Can You Trust Your Johnson?">earlier post</a>:<br />
<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
"I believe I was born gay, my first fantasies were about men and
men have always aroused me, whereas women have aroused me very little. I
became addicted to internet porn in my late teens. Gay sex to me is
very normal and natural. Yet I lost interest in it over time. I became
interested in straight porn and found myself increasingly losing
interest in the male anatomy and developing a fetish for female
genitalia. I had no attraction to it before my porn viewing became
excessive. New genres gradually replaced old ones in sexual appeal. To
my shock, I started to think that I could potentially be bisexual, so I
arranged a meeting with a female escort to test out this possibility.<br />
However, I did not experience much arousal and the situation felt wrong
to me. It was completely different to porn.<br />
<br />
I decided to stop watching pornography, and after being porn-free
for quite some time I can happily say my fetish for women has gone. Gay
sex has returned to the norm for me. I can also add that during my porn
escalation, transexual porn never became arousing to me in the
slightest, despite the fact pre-operative transwomen have a penis. It
would be like asking a straight man if he would have sex with a man that
had a vagina, which I have to add is something that did appeal to me at
one time."</blockquote>
<br />
It's evident that this type of porn-related progression has little to
do with users uncovering their "deepest urges and most uninhibited
thoughts" (Ogas and Gaddam's words). The targets are moving too fast.
Rare users even recognize the process while it's unfolding:<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<br />
"Porn binges for 4-6 hours the last couple days. On the plus side,
it did become more obvious that the transsexual porn is unrelated to my
sexuality. After spending 30+ hours over the past 5 days watching porn,
transsexual porn started to become boring! I began searching for other
more disgusting and shocking stuff."</blockquote>
<br />
So what's actually going on? Let's start by distinguishing
desensitization from habituation. Satiety (habituation) and a desire for
novelty are built right into the mammalian brain and are not
pathological. You can't eat another bite of turkey (satiety), but you
feel palpable enthusiasm for pumpkin pie (dopamine released for novel,
high-calorie food). The process repeats itself the next day. Obviously,
this natural process can leave porn users somewhat vulnerable to
overconsuming novel erotica simply because novelty registers as "yes!"<br />
<br />
Desensitization, in contrast, is a pathology arising from continued
overconsumption. Measurable, physical brain changes (declines in D2
nerve cell receptors) indicate an addiction is in process. Unlike the
transitory effects of habituation, desensitization takes time to
reverse, in part because it is tied to other stubborn <a href="http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/cupids-poisoned-arrow/201203/recent-internet-addiction-studies-include-porn" target="_blank" title="Recent Internet Addiction Studies Include Porn">addiction-related brain changes</a>.<br />
<br />
<h3>
Novelty = dopamine</h3>
<br />
In the case of Internet porn users, the appeal of overconsumption is that it allows the user to override his <a href="http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/cupids-poisoned-arrow/201205/men-does-frequent-ejaculation-cause-hangover" target="_blank" title="Men: Does Frequent Ejaculation Cause a Hangover?">innate satiety-recovery window</a>.
Instead of waiting for his sexual appetite to return naturally he can
click to enough stimulation to produce a rush of excitory neurochemicals
(such as dopamine and norepinephrine). He achieves arousal that would
otherwise be impossible, or more difficult.<br />
<br />
Now, his brain perceives <i>all</i> porn that gets him aroused,
regardless of content, as valuable because it releases "go get it"
neurochemicals. Again, all he needs is novel, shocking material, whether
or not it matches his fundamental sexual inclinations. The fallacy in <i>Wicked Thoughts </i>is that <i>only</i>
our fundamental tastes can release enough dopamine in our brains to
motivate porn use. Nothing could be farther from the truth. Dopamine is
dopamine, however you trigger it.<br />
<br />
<img alt="The Scream" src="https://my.psychologytoday.com/files/imagecache/article-inline-half/blogs/30011/2012/07/100118-97815.jpg" style="float: right;" />Thus,
escalation to bizarre porn is meaningful primarily because it is a
major warning sign of addiction, not because it tells porn addicts (or
anyone else) useful information about their innate sexual desires. The
deeper one's addiction, the more desperate the need for this
neurochemical relief, in part because normal pleasures are growing less
satisfying and cravings more intense.<br />
<br />
Worse yet, if a porn user climaxes to something that is not
consistent with his underlying sexual orientation and fundamental
inclinations, but it releases enough dopamine and norepinephrine in his
brain (because it is exciting or even anxiety-producing), his brain will
also wire the new stimulus up to his reward circuitry. The next time he
encounters any cues related to it, he will find it mysteriously
arousing—and today's therapists will often swiftly assure him he has
discovered valuable information about his "deepest urges." Not so.<br />
<br />
Of course, some porn users get their novelty fix by viewing new porn
within their preferred genre (i.e., the genre that reflects their
fundamental sexual desires). However, many of today's porn users report
that their sexual tastes morph all over the place as their brains grow
desensitized. That said, porn addiction dynamics may be somewhat
different in men and women.<br />
<br />
<h3>
One-way street?</h3>
<br />
Those on the escalation treadmill are often horrified to discover
that they can no longer climax to their former tastes. Sadly, the more
distressing (to them) their new porn choices, the more compelling those
choices can become, due to the excitory neurochemicals released by their
anxiety about what they're watching.<br />
<br />
Seldom do they figure out that their brain's desensitization would
naturally reverse itself—thereby restoring their dopamine receptors and
their responsiveness to their earlier tastes. Why? They dare not cease
masturbating even for a few weeks, in part because when they try to stop
their <a href="http://www.yourbrainonporn.com/i-quit-porn-but-my-potency-and-libido-are-decreasing-help" target="_blank" title="Self-reports of "flatline" during recovery">libido may drop off</a>
alarmingly and they don't realize it's a temporary effect of restoring
their brains to balance. The word on the street is, "use it or lose it,"
and since many are already losing their mojo due to overconsumption,
they're terrified to stop.<br />
<br />
<b>In short, the issue for these users is not freedom to pursue
their deep desires, but rather alien tastes, which are primarily the
product of avoidable neurochemical changes inadvertently brought on by
the users themselves. </b><br />
<br />
It's happening in part because of superficial analysis that is,
frankly, dangerously misleading, not to mention potentially distressing,
for porn users caught on this slippery slope:<br />
<ol>
<li>It wrongly implies that they have no control over their changing tastes.</li>
<li>It misdirects their attention away from the scientific information
about the neuroscience of addiction, which they need to understand their
circumstances and steer for the results they want.</li>
<li>It encourages them to ignore, or accept and pursue, their escalating
tastes as healthy, when they are, for many of today's users, symptoms
of a well established disease process: behavioral addiction.</li>
</ol>
<h3>
"Normalizing" addiction</h3>
<br />
Seltzer writes:<br />
<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
"One of the most helpful things that A Billion Wicked Thoughts
accomplishes is normalizing many sexual preferences that to this point
may have struck you (and maybe most people) as deviant. Obviously, the
more widespread a predilection, the more difficult it is to simply
dismiss it as “sick”—especially if there are psychological and
biological causes that convincingly explain it."</blockquote>
<br />
What if some of these so-called 'deviant' tastes are solely due to
addiction and tolerance (the need for stronger stimulation)? If enough
people experience evidence of a pathology it may become the norm, but it
doesn't mean their behavior isn't "sick."<br />
<br />
Addiction epidemics have occurred before in humanity's history and
they did not make the symptoms the addicts suffered "normal" in the
sense of "free of pathology." For example, in the mid-18th century,
parts of inner London suffered the <a href="http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/damianthompson/100161028/addiction-the-coming-epidemic/" target="_blank" title="Addiction: the coming epidemic">world’s first mass epidemic</a> of alcoholism. And in <i>The Compass of Pleasure</i> David Linden recounts a mass addiction to inhaling cheap ether in Ireland in the 1880s.<br />
<br />
In the case of Internet porn, is it wise to assume that all we need to know is whether tastes are "normal" or "deviant"<i>—</i>basing
our answer on statistics rather than physiology? Are we even framing
the right question if we ignore the possibility that morphing porn
tastes could be driven by a numbed reward circuitry in pursuit of a
neurochemical buzz regardless of content?<br />
<br />
<h3>
Reversing engines: evidence that porn tastes are not innate</h3>
<br />
Most tellingly, users who stop all Internet porn and allow their
brains to return to normal sensitivity generally discover that they <i>weren't</i>
on a one-way street after all. Their porn tastes slowly begin to
reverse themselves—curiously, in reverse order—all the way back to their
earliest tastes. For example, real sex with their partners often <a href="http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/cupids-poisoned-arrow/201202/guys-who-gave-porn-sex-and-romance" target="_blank" title="Guys Who Gave Up Porn: On Sex and Romance">becomes arousing (again)</a>.<br />
<br />
The process is not easy. It generally entails nasty <a href="http://www.yourbrainonporn.com/what-does-withdrawal-from-porn-look-like" target="_blank" title="What does withdrawal from porn addiction look like?">withdrawal symptoms</a>,
annoying flashbacks, and often a long period of "libido flatline." But,
for many, it completely restores their true sexual desires, which their
porn use no longer reflected. Said one man:<br />
<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
"I used to get turned on by anything remotely feminine when I was
13, but that steadily changed as I watched more and more porn. I started
to get anxious about my sexuality because I knew I was straight based
on history, but at the same time I could not physically respond to the
old cues. Sometimes when I was especially relaxed or drunk, I would
respond as I did when younger. It was very confusing because I never had
any homosexual fantasies or desires. Giving up masturbation to porn has
completely eliminated any doubt, because now my libido is almost too
much to handle. I'm more responsive to women, and responded to more by
women."</blockquote>
<br />
<h3>
Superficial analysis harms</h3>
<br />
The assumptions of Ogas and Gaddam rest on the mistaken conviction
that all sexual tastes are unchanging and that no matter how porn is
delivered to our brains, our tastes will conform to our innate,
unchanging proclivities.<br />
<br />
Given that chronic overstimulation via Internet porn is <i>transforming</i>
viewers’ sexual tastes, the Ogas and Gaddam snapshot offers little
genuine insight into human desire. The most useful application of their
data might be to serve as a comparison with similar data from another
era, so that the dynamic process of escalation can be measured across
the population over time, and the data's true significance better
understood.<br />
<br />
The study of human desire will remain superficial and of little use
to humans until experts integrate and teach the public how the brain
works, how it learns, and how addictions can distort sexual tastes due
to desensitization/tolerance.<br />
<br />
<b><i>In my next post I'll address the key assumption that underlies
Ogas and Gaddam's work, namely, the claim that our sexual tastes are
immutable.</i></b>Concerned Observershttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17481437202179154037noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6124915000554403951.post-71964697124348437782013-07-12T14:57:00.000-07:002013-07-21T14:57:32.340-07:00'A Billion Wicked Thoughts' Is Only A Snapshot: Longitudinal studies are needed to reveal morphing porn tastes <div class="field field-name-body field-type-text-with-summary field-label-hidden">
<div class="field-items">
<div class="field-item even">
<div class="article-abstract">
<i><b> Longitudinal studies are needed to reveal morphing porn tastes </b></i></div>
<div class="article-abstract">
<br /></div>
<div class="view view-crosstalk view-id-crosstalk view-display-id-pt_block_1 view-dom-id-1">
<div class="pt-box pt-box-solid-blue">
<div class="pt-box-content">
<div class="view-primary">
<div class="view-content">
<div class="views-row views-row-1 views-row-odd views-row-first views-row-last">
<div class="blog-entry-reply-text">
This post is a response to <a href="http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/billion-wicked-thoughts/201207/the-truth-about-50-shades-grey-and-futanari-porn">The Truth about 50 Shades of Grey and Futanari Porn</a> by Ogi Ogas, Ph.D.</div>
<hr />
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<div class="article-content-top">
</div>
<div class="article-content-top">
We'd like to begin our response to your above post by clarifying some points that you have misunderstood in <a href="http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/cupids-poisoned-arrow/201207/rethinking-ogas-and-gaddams-billion-wicked-thoughts" target="_blank" title="Rethinking Ogas and Gaddam's 'A Billion Wicked Thoughts'">our post</a>.</div>
<div class="article-content-top">
</div>
<div class="article-content-top">
<h3>
1. You've completely missed the main concept of our post</h3>
</div>
<div class="article-content-top">
</div>
<div class="article-content-top">
As a consequence, most of what you've written has nothing to do with our primary point: <i><a class="pt-basics-link" href="http://www.psychologytoday.com/basics/pornography" title="Psychology Today looks at Pornography">Porn</a> tastes that have morphed as the consequence of addiction-related <a class="pt-basics-link" href="http://www.psychologytoday.com/basics/neuroscience" title="Psychology Today looks at Neuroscience">brain</a> changes tell us little about such users' fundamental sexual tastes.</i> Unless research tracks the Internet porn tastes of individual users <i>over years</i>, it cannot possibly refute the point we made in our post. Yours did not.<br />
<br />
Addiction-related brain changes occur over time. For example, most of the men <a class="ext" href="http://www.reuniting.info/download/pdf/0.TOLERANCE.pdf" target="_blank">whose self-reports</a> we analyze are in their twenties and they have been using porn for 8-12 years.<br />
<br /></div>
<b>The <a class="ext" href="http://www.billionwickedthoughts.com/excerpt.html" target="_blank" title="http://www.billionwickedthoughts.com/excerpt.html">3-month histories</a>
you analyzed could not have revealed the phenomenon our post addressed
because short histories wouldn't be sufficient to pick up the kinds of
changing tastes users are reporting</b>. Therefore, those who rely on your
analysis are not considering an important potential confound: escalation
to new genres due to addiction-related brain changes.<br />
<br />
Just to clarify, we did not suggest that most men look at lots of different genres in a <i>single session</i>
(although some do, as you point out). Our point is that many porn
users' tastes no longer represent their fundamental sexual inclinations.<br />
<br />
We don't doubt that when porn users open a lot of tabs during a
session, those tabs are generally related to their fetish-du-jour.
However, in our view you should be hesitant to conclude that porn tastes
are therefore stable over time.<br />
<br />
Incidentally, most all porn searches are a search for novelty. If
this weren't so, users would continue to watch their carefully
bookmarked/archived favorites. Many men report compiling massive porn
collections...and never watching them because the lure of novelty is so
strong. Heavy web-cam use is a perfect example of a novelty fix—although
we would point out that the men are still interacting with screens, not
people.<br />
<br />
Keep in mind that when <a class="pt-basics-link" href="http://www.psychologytoday.com/basics/addiction" title="Psychology Today looks at Addiction">addiction</a>
takes hold of an Internet porn user there are two different ways to
escalate: 1) viewing more of one's preferred genre and 2) viewing novel
genres. Seeking (searching), novelty and surprise all <a href="http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/cupids-poisoned-arrow/201108/porn-then-and-now-welcome-brain-training" target="_blank" title="Porn Then and Now: Welcome to Brain Training">release dopamine</a>, quite apart from the <a class="pt-basics-link" href="http://www.psychologytoday.com/basics/dopamine" title="Psychology Today looks at Dopamine">dopamine</a> released in response to erotic themes.<br />
<br />
<h3>
2. You place too much <a class="pt-basics-link" href="http://www.psychologytoday.com/basics/religion" title="Psychology Today looks at Religion">faith</a> in outdated research</h3>
<br />
You mention the abundant research supporting your conclusions that
tastes are unchanging. Has any of it investigated highspeed Internet
porn users? We track the research in this area and haven't seen anything
current enough to be relevant, given that the Internet is proving
addictive (for some users) in a way that porn of the past was not.
(Relevant Internet addiction studies are <a class="ext" href="http://www.yourbrainonporn.com/internet-addiction-studies-summaries" target="_blank" title="Internet Addiction Studies">collected here</a>. Some include porn use.) More important, have you seen any research that follows Internet porn users' sexual tastes over time?<br />
<br />
You are right that we endorse <a class="ext" href="http://yourbrainonporn.com/doidge-on-pornography-and-neuroplasticity" target="_blank" title="porn chapter - doidge">Norman Doidge MD's </a>view
that tolerance is playing a role in today's porn use. His
clients' experience accords perfectly with self-reports from across the
Web. It's tragic that researchers have been so overconfident of the
concept that "sexual tastes are immutable (at least in men)" that they
haven't yet uncovered the dynamic we and Doidge have observed.<br />
<br />
However, if you'd like to undertake the necessary research, we'd be happy to refer you to <a class="ext" href="http://yourbrainonporn.com/external-rebooting-blogs-threads" target="_blank" title="external links & blogs">forums across the Web </a>in
many countries where men are reporting this morphing-tastes phenomenon
with alarming regularity. This research will, however, require
questionnaires and analysis free of <span class="pt-basics-link">biased</span> preconceptions.<br />
<br />
In fact, <a class="ext" href="http://www.reddit.com/r/NoFap/" target="_blank" title="reddit nofap">reddit/nofap</a> produced a <a class="ext" href="https://docs.google.com/file/d/0B7q3tr4EV02weTFmV0oySnpJZjA/edit?pli=1" target="_blank" title="nofap member survey">member survey,</a> which found that over 60% of its members' sexual tastes underwent significant escalation, through multiple porn genres.<br />
<br />
Q: Did your tatstes in pornography change?<br />
<ul>
<li>My tastes did not change significantly - 29%</li>
<li>My tastes became increasingly extreme or deviant and this caused me to feel <span class="pt-basics-link">shame</span> or <span class="pt-basics-link">stress</span> - 36%</li>
<li>My tastes became increasingly extreme or deviant and this did <i>not</i> cause me to feel shame or stress - 27%</li>
</ul>
<h3>
3. Snapshots have serious limitations where supernormal stimulation is involved</h3>
<br />
Your discussion of women is merely another snapshot. Again, we're not writing about who seeks novelty <i>within</i>
a session, or even within a short period. We are talking about an
addiction process called tolerance, which occurs over time as the
consequence of related brain changes.<br />
<br />
The slippery slope of addiction-related tolerance is related to
down-regulation of dopamine signaling in the brain and a search for more
stimulation. It's not surprising that women also seek their fixes. Nor
is surprising that they prefer a different mix of stimulation. Some have
already reported that their porn use has desensitized them too.<br />
<br />
Your snapshot model doesn't explain what many men describe: The
inability to get off to one's current porn genre and the need to move to
something unfamiliar to climax...rinse and repeat. Your book simply
denies that it can happen—and yet <a href="http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/cupids-poisoned-arrow/201110/can-you-trust-your-johnson" target="_blank" title="Can You Trust Your Johnson?">it is happening</a>. As far as we know, only the brain plasticity model explains this now familiar pattern.<br />
<br />
You dismiss the concept of desensitization, but research has already shown that it occurs in Internet addicts. See <a class="ext" href="http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21499141" target="_blank" title="Reduced Striatal Dopamine D2 Receptors in People With Internet Addiction">Reduced Striatal Dopamine D2 Receptors in People With Internet Addiction</a> and <a class="ext" href="http://www.hindawi.com/journals/jbb/2012/854524/" target="_blank" title="Reduced Striatal Dopamine Transporters in People with Internet Addiction Disorder">Reduced Striatal Dopamine Transporters in People with Internet Addiction Disorder</a> Please see this post for other addiction-related brain changes found in Internet addicts: <a href="http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/cupids-poisoned-arrow/201203/recent-internet-addiction-studies-include-porn" target="_blank" title="Recent Internet Addiction Studies Include Porn">Recent Internet Addiction Studies Include Porn.</a><br />
<br />
<h3>
4. You have mischaracterized our mindset</h3>
<br />
We were surprised to read your spin implying that our post was based
on moralizing or calling any particular porn "deviant." That was
Seltzer's word. Our point was that porn tastes, which are morphing due
to an addiction process, are a symptom of a <i>pathology—</i>whether vanilla, chocolate or strawberry<i>.</i> After all, the nucleus accumbens registers neurochemical impact, not content.<br />
<br />
We know it's fun to believe you are defending sexual freedom from
'evil moralizers,' but lest any readers be misled by your words, here's
that section of our post:<br />
<br />
<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<i>Seltzer writes:<br /><br />"One of the most helpful things that A Billion Wicked Thoughts accomplishes is normalizing many sexual preferences that to this point may have struck you (and maybe most people) as deviant. Obviously, the more widespread a predilection, the more difficult it is to simply dismiss it as “sick”—especially if there are psychological and biological causes that convincingly explain it."<br /><br />What if some of these so-called 'deviant' tastes are solely due to addiction and tolerance (the need for stronger stimulation)? If enough people experience evidence of a pathology [escalation] it may become the norm, but it doesn't mean their behavior isn't "sick." [addiction-related]<br /><br />Addiction epidemics have occurred before in humanity's history and they did not make the symptoms the addicts suffered "normal" in the sense of "free of pathology."</i><i>Not one word of our post was judging particular content. Only the symptom of tolerance was under discussion in this section.</i></blockquote>
<br />
Could you clarify what "moralistic ideas about addiction" might be?
We often check our posts with leading addiction experts, and neither we
nor they are motivated by a desire to moralize as far as we know.<br />
<br />
You also say we lump all erotica together and say it "inevitably
provokes a dangerous 'escalation to bizarre porn.'" This
mischaracterizes what we've written in our post. The phrase 'escalation
to bizarre porn' clearly referred to porn <i>addicts, </i>not all porn users. Escalation is a function of <a href="http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/cupids-poisoned-arrow/201109/toss-your-textbooks-docs-redefine-sexual-behavior-addictions%20" target="_blank" title="Toss Your Textbooks: Docs Redefine Sexual Behavior Addictions"><i>brain changes</i></a> whether someone is overconsuming vanilla or fetish erotica.<br />
<br />
Not all brains experience addiction-related brain changes, of course,
and this should have been evident from our post. We do stand by our
suggestion that for those slipping into addiction, escalation to bizarre
porn is most likely a symptom of a pathology rather than an indication
of underlying sexual tastes.<br />
<br />
We do agree that, prior to highspeed, men's sexual tastes were more
fixed than women's. We believe that the right research will reveal that
Internet porn has weakened that assumption, at least where porn tastes
are concerned.<br />
<br />
<h3>
Let's get to the bottom of the extreme symptoms users are now reporting</h3>
<br />
Your 'snapshot' research could not have revealed the phenomenon we're
pointing to. However, it's also likely that it was not as widespread
back in 2006 when you gathered your data. Only in the last five years
have we been hearing self-reports of the severe symptoms we write about:
sexual performance problems, morphing sexual tastes, uncharacteristic <span class="pt-basics-link">social anxiety</span>, lack of attraction to 3-D potential mates, and so forth.<br />
<br />
It appears that these symptoms are associated with <i>duration of highspeed</i> access and <a href="http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/cupids-poisoned-arrow/201110/why-shouldn-t-johnny-watch-porn-if-he-likes" target="_blank" title="Why Shouldn’t Johnny Watch Porn If He Likes?">how early in life</a> someone starts using it. We think it <span class="pt-basics-link">wise</span>
to warn those, like Seltzer, who rely on your analysis, that your
analysis may insufficient for today's porn users and their caregivers.<br />
<br />
If we're right, then it behooves all of us to stop bickering about
the fine points of research that is now six years out of date and did
not address the possibility that tolerance might be at work, and start
researching the truly alarming symptoms now being widely reported and
their fundamental cause.<br />
<br />
A good place to begin is with a thorough <span class="pt-basics-link">understanding</span> of the implications of <a href="http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/cupids-poisoned-arrow/201203/recent-internet-addiction-studies-include-porn" target="_blank" title="Recent Internet Addiction Studies Include Porn">recent addiction neuroscience</a> on the effects of today's increasingly potent delivery of <a class="ext" href="http://www.yourbrainonporn.com/garys-research-addiction-video-game" target="_blank" title="Internet and video game addiction research">cyber stimulation</a>.
The real issue here may have little to do with erotica and everything
to do with novelty-at-a-click. Here's a user's own historical account of
the remarkable dynamic of Internet porn. It just appeared today.<br />
<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
"Pornography" [was once] little more than Playboy, maybe some
softcore stuff on cable access, but for the majority of boys the only
way to get that excitement [was] to pause your VCR at JUST THE RIGHT
TIME (remember that?? Holy sh*t!! Just thought of it while typing this).
Pornography - after a very important Supreme Court ruling - [was]
totally protected by the First Amendment, unless it [was] rape or
kiddie porn or something. Now, you have people who hate porn, but take
the "I don't like what you say but I'll defend to the death your right
to say it" mentality, seeing any attempt to infringe pornography as
"Un-American"/regressive/repressive/reactionary. Hell, even feminists
[begin] to say that porn can be empowering for women (and even the
pornstars).<br />
<br />
However, nobody thinks ahead to the mid to late 2000's, when
Johnny and Lisa can access every disgusting fetish and -philia in High
Definition in a nanosecond with high speed internet access (Oh man...
remember waiting like 5 minutes for a single PICTURE to download in the
late 90's??? Damn, writing this is taking me BACK!). Hell, today most
MIDDLE SCHOOLERS can access every sick twisted fetish that has ever
existed in seconds with a device that they can fit in their f-ing
pocket.<br />
<br />
A lot of "good" intentions gone wrong. <b>Principles that exist in a vacuum don't always make sense in the real world, and technology changes things. </b></blockquote>
</div>
</div>
</div>
Concerned Observershttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17481437202179154037noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6124915000554403951.post-15857752652720796572013-07-11T14:08:00.000-07:002013-07-21T14:09:16.071-07:00Drumroll: An Academic Journal For Porn Fans<span class="print-link"><span class="print_html"><a class="print-page" href="http://yourbrainonporn.com/print/book/export/html/1967" rel="nofollow" title="Display a printer-friendly version of this page."></a></span></span><br />
<div class="field field-name-body field-type-text-with-summary field-label-hidden">
<div class="field-items">
<div class="field-item even">
<i><img alt="Journal of Awesome Studies - spoof cover" class="media-image" height="173" src="http://d3tn233v01gkf3.cloudfront.net/sites/yourbrainonporn.com/files/styles/small/public/academic1.jpg?itok=LB_tF-23" style="float: right;" width="145" /><b>Academia prepares to 'accentuate the positive' in new porn periodical</b></i><br />
<br />
If there were ever a human phenomenon in need of serious objective
investigation, Internet porn use is surely it. Never has the youthful
human brain been battered with so much erotic novelty during such a
critical window of sexual development, and cracks are definitely
appearing. However, judging from the board of the upcoming <i>Porn Studies Journal</i>, this particular publication will lack the detachment and expertise to fulfill this critical role.<br />
According to <a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/05/03/porn-studies-academic-journal-pornography_n_3208900.html?ir=Women">HuffPo</a>:<br />
<br />
<blockquote>
The journal, which is being <a href="http://artsbeat.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/04/30/routledge-to-publish-porn-studies-journal/" target="_hplink">published by Routledge</a> starting in 2014, will welcome <a href="http://www.livescience.com/29281-pornography-journal-launches.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+Livesciencecom+%28LiveScience.com+Science+Headline+Feed%29" target="_hplink">submissions from fields</a>
as diverse as criminology, sociology, labor studies and media studies.
According to the New York Times, Porn Studies will focus on pornography
as it relates to “the intersection of sexuality, gender, race, class,
age and ability.” This is definitely XXX-content for the scholarly set.</blockquote>
<br />
There is nothing in the list of proposed topics about the adverse
effects of Internet porn on users. In fact, all of the 32 board members
for the new journal appear to think porn's benefits far outweigh its
costs.<br />
<br />
Imagine a "Dietetics Studies Journal" in the Land of the Obese, whose
board consists only of the Chairman of the Board of PepsiCo, the CEOs
of Nestle and Pillsbury, and a marketing exec from Kraft, and you have a
good feel for the bias of the upcoming journal<i>.</i><br />
<br />
23 of the total 32 board members specialize in media and film
studies, which suggests that a better name for the journal would be <i>Porn Film Today</i>.
None have extensive background in physiology, neuroscience, adolescent
development or addiction. Indeed, a mere 3 of the 32 have PhDs in
psychology.<br />
<br />
Worse yet, none appear to have any clinical experience with the kinds
of issues today's porn can cause—with the exception of Marty Klein,
darling of the Adult Video Network. AVN honored Klein with <a href="http://www.avn.com/porn-stars/Marty-Klein-PhD-253561.html" title="Marty Klein's AVN porn star page">his own porn star page</a> to show its gratitude.<br />
<br />
It should. Klein has repeatedly emphasized porn's harmlessness. See, for example, his post, <a href="http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/sexual-intelligence/201111/14-ways-observe-pornography-awareness-week" title="14 Ways to Observe Pornography Awareness Week">Fourteen Ways to Observe Pornography Awareness Week</a>. One of the 14 is, "<i>Memorize this fact: using porn does NOT cause brain damage, erectile dysfunction, or loss of sexual interest in one’s mate</i>." <a href="http://www.yourbrainonporn.com/does-porn-addiction-cause-irreversible-damage-to-the-brain" target="_blank" title="Does porn addiction cause irreversible damage to the brain?">Brain damage is a red herring</a> — although<a href="http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/cupids-poisoned-arrow/201206/porn-pseudoscience-and-fosb" target="_blank" title="Porn, Pseudoscience and ΔFosB"> addiction-related brain changes</a> can be stubborn to reverse. Many <a href="http://www.yourbrainonporn.com/rebooting-accounts" target="_blank" title="rebooting accounts">self-reports of users</a>, however, document <a href="http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/cupids-poisoned-arrow/201302/dr-oz-show-investigates-porn-induced-ed" target="_blank" title="Dr. Oz Show Investigates Porn-Induced ED">porn-related ED </a>and <a href="http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/cupids-poisoned-arrow/201201/why-do-i-find-porn-more-exciting-partner" target="_blank" title="Why Do I Find Porn More Exciting Than A Partner?">loss of attraction to real partners</a> (as well as reversal of these symptoms after giving up porn use).<br />
<br />
<h3>
A closer look at the editors and editorial board</h3>
<br />
The new journal's board is overwhelmingly composed of artists and
theorists who think Internet porn is the greatest thing since the
invention of "talkies." Here's a sprinkling of the talent the new
journal will tap, beginning with its editors, Smith and Attwood.<br />
<ul>
<li>Clarissa Smith - In a recent "<a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AASzf68w1JU" target="_blank" title="Watch the debate">Intelligence Squared</a>" debate, Smith, representing the pro-porn side, <a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/books/booksblog/2013/may/02/porn-studies-new-discipline-academics" title="Link to "Guardian" article about new journal (UK)">announced</a> that "Pornography is good for us."</li>
<li><a href="http://www.pornresearch.org/about-the-researchers.html" target="_blank" title="About the researchers">Fiona Attwood</a> and Clarissa Smith were co-authors of <a href="http://www.pornresearch.org/Firstsummaryforwebsite.pdf" target="_blank" title="Link to results">a survey</a> of
people who "use and enjoy porn." Alas, the press then predictably
glosses over such limitations, misleading readers that an objective
study has concluded that "porn is great."</li>
<li>Australian board member Kath Albury, did their her own dodgy <a href="http://www.abc.net.au/religion/articles/2011/09/06/3310775.htm" title="Information about "The Porn Report"">survey</a>
with fellow board member Alan McKee in 2008, funded in part by actual
pornography businesses. "The authors claim that the harm of pornography
is negligible and is, in any case, outweighed by the expressed pleasure
of its user<i>s.</i>”</li>
<li><a href="http://www.theregister.co.uk/2004/08/16/net_smut_ok/" title="Link to article with quotation">Alan McKee</a> - "Pornography is actually good for you in many ways."</li>
<li>Violet Blue - Blue says you should think of erotica as a tool in a
woman's sexual arsenal. "It can be as reliable as a woman's vibrator."
(Link not included: NSFW.)</li>
<li><a href="http://www.open.ac.uk/socialsciences/staff/people-profile.php?name=Meg_Barker" title="Faculty profile for Barker">Meg Barker </a> - "Most of my research has been conducted within sexual communities, focusing on bisexuality, BDSM, and open non-monogamy."</li>
<li><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tristan_Taormino" title="Wiki page on Taormino">Tristan Taormino</a> - Pornographic film maker and actress, creator of "Rough Sex #2" and "House of Ass," among others.</li>
</ul>
Expect this bunch to churn out the erotic equivalent of food
studies entitled, "The Life-Enhancing Aspects of Deep-Fried Banana
Splits." Why? Because the <i>Porn Studies Journal </i>board members have made it their mission to accentuate the positive and eliminate the negative, just like the old song advised.<br />
<br />
<h3>
Who is <i>not</i> on the board?</h3>
<br />
Although many <a href="http://www.yourbrainonporn.com/external-rebooting-blogs-threads" target="_blank" title="External Rebooting Blogs & Threads">porn users across the web are complaining</a> of <a href="http://www.yourbrainonporn.com/what-are-the-symptoms-of-excessive-porn-use" target="_blank" title="What are the symptoms of excessive Internet porn use?">severe symptoms</a> from overconsumption of Internet porn, including <a href="http://yourbrainonporn.com/can-you-trust-your-johnson" target="_blank" title="Can You Trust Your Johnson?">escalation to extreme material</a>, <a href="http://www.reuniting.info/download/pdf/0.WITHDRAWAL.pdf" target="_blank" title="the "Withdrawals" PDF">withdrawal misery</a>, <a href="http://yourbrainonporn.com/any-suggestions-for-healing-delayed-ejaculation" target="_blank" title="Any suggestions for healing delayed ejaculation (DE)?">delayed ejaculation</a> and <a href="http://www.yourbrainrebalanced.com/index.php?board=5.0" target="_blank" title="YBR - PIED">erectile dysfunction</a>,
there's not one behavioral-addiction specialist or urologist among the
new journal's dozens of colorful board members. In fact, it seems likely
that this board is so focused on what's going on between our legs that
they will have little use for gathering data on porn's effects between
our ears.<br />
<br />
The <a href="http://artsbeat.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/04/30/routledge-to-publish-porn-studies-journal/" title="Routledge to Publish Porn Studies Journal">New York Times</a>
announced the new journal in its "Arts" section. However Internet porn
that's wreaking the most havoc today is not about culture, the niceties
of erotic film making, or anything that happened before high-speed. It's
about <a href="http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/cupids-poisoned-arrow/201108/porn-then-and-now-welcome-brain-training" target="_blank" title="Porn Then and Now: Welcome to Brain Training">delivery of unending novelty </a>and screens—not sex. It's about <a href="http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/cupids-poisoned-arrow/201301/are-porn-tube-sites-causing-erectile-dysfunction" target="_blank" title="Are Porn Tube Sites Causing Erectile Dysfunction?">free porn tube sites</a>, that is, multiple open tabs of 3-minute clips of the most explosive segments of countless hi-def videos. It's about <a href="http://www.reuniting.info/download/pdf/0.TOLERANCE.pdf" target="_blank" title="tolerance PDF">escalation</a> to increasingly taboo (<a href="http://www.yourbrainonporn.com/Can%20You%20Trust%20Your%20Johnson?Is_Internet_porn_making_male_sexuality_more_plastic%3F" target="_blank" title="http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/cupids-poisoned-arrow/201110/can-you-trust-your-johnson">in the user's view</a>) porn.<br />
Above all, it's about the effects of this kind of unparalleled <a href="http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/cupids-poisoned-arrow/201110/why-shouldn-t-johnny-watch-porn-if-he-likes" target="_blank" title="Sexual brain training matters—especially during adolescence.">brain-training on adolescent brains</a>, and related problems. These including unaccustomed <a href="http://www.reuniting.info/download/pdf/0.SOCIAL.ANXIETY.pdf" target="_blank" title="social anxiety PDF">social anxiety</a>, <a href="http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/cupids-poisoned-arrow/201212/no-porn-better-working-memory" target="_blank" title="No Porn, Better Working Memory? Research finds porn imagery lowers cognitive function">concentration and motivation problems</a>, widespread <a href="http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/cupids-poisoned-arrow/201209/young-porn-users-need-longer-recover-their-mojo" target="_blank" title="Young Porn Users Need Longer To Recover Their Mojo:">youthful sexual performance problems </a>and consequent problems using condoms.<br />
<br />
<h3>
Listen for these dubious talking points </h3>
<br />
One thing is for sure: A journal whose editors will not ask questions
that would uncover the symptoms of addiction or sexual conditioning
certainly will not find evidence of either. Indeed, judging from the
talking points we hear repeatedly from folks on the <i>Porn Studies Journal </i>board,
you can expect them to largely ignore the unsettling phenomena in the
preceding paragraph in favor of the following distractions:<br />
<ol>
<li>Lots of porn is made by amateurs (or at least made to appear
that it is made by amateurs), so we can all disregard the tube-site,
gonzo-porn phenomenon.</li>
<li>Becoming dependent upon a screen to become aroused is every bit as much "healthy sex" as is human erotic interaction.</li>
<li>Sexual minorities can only learn how to have sex by watching
Internet porn, so porn access for kids is vital. (However, Austrian film
maker <a href="http://sexgodproject.com/porn-is-the-enemy-of-great-sex/" title="Porn is the Enemy of Great Sex">Gregor Schmidinger</a> is asking whether early Internet porn use is leading to weak erections among some gay users.)</li>
<li>The rise in popularity of so-called <a href="http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2318997/Porn-Studies-journal-launch-Spring.html" title="Fifty shades of research: First ever journal dedicated to studying pornography to launch">'Mummy Porn</a>', including books such as the <i>Fifty Shades of Grey</i> trilogy, is a step forward for humankind.</li>
<li>Telling kids that there is "good porn" and "bad porn" will head off
any problems for youthful porn users, a proposal Marty Klein refers to
by the euphemism <i>porn literacy</i>.</li>
</ol>
Basically, this journal seems poised to tell us what we already
know: Porn users like porn (at least until it causes life-wrecking
symptoms)." If academics survey fraternity parties and yell, "Anyone
here like beer?" We hypothesize that the collective response will be an
overpowering "Hell yes!" But would such a survey tell us anything about
the benefits or harms of binge drinking?<br />
<br />
<h3>
Petition to journal's publisher</h3>
<br />
If you would like Routledge (the publisher of the new journal) to
instate a more objective board, or, in the alternative, change the new
journal's title to something more accurate, you can sign <a href="http://www.ipetitions.com/petition/porn_studies_bias/" title="Link to petition">this petition</a>.<br />
The petition's creators say,<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<br />
"It is imperative that a journal titled Porn Studies creates
space for critical analyses of porn from diverse and divergent
perspectives. Our hope is that you will change the composition of the
editorial board, confirm the journal’s commitment to a heterogeneous
interrogation of the issues embedded in porn and porn culture, and
ensure that diverse perspectives are represented – on the board and also
in the essays published in the journal. Failing that, we ask that you
change the name to reflect and make evident the bias of its editors
(Pro-Porn Studies) and create another journal ... (for instance,
Critical Porn Studies)."</blockquote>
<br />
<a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/culture/2013/jun/16/internet-violent-porn-crime-studies" target="_blank" title="Porn wars: the debate that's dividing academia"><b>UK article about new journal<i><br /></i></b></a></div>
</div>
</div>
Concerned Observershttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17481437202179154037noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6124915000554403951.post-43658939401579310732013-07-05T13:59:00.000-07:002013-07-21T14:00:18.956-07:00Women, Vibrators, and Shaky Sex Research<span class="print-link"><span class="print_html"><a class="print-page" href="http://yourbrainonporn.com/print/book/export/html/2133" rel="nofollow" title="Display a printer-friendly version of this page."></a></span></span><br />
<div class="field field-name-body field-type-text-with-summary field-label-hidden">
<div class="field-items">
<div class="field-item even">
<img alt="Trojan boasting about the vibrator study it bought" class="media-image" height="88" src="http://d3tn233v01gkf3.cloudfront.net/sites/yourbrainonporn.com/files/styles/small/public/trojan.vibrator.JPG?itok=H02aGhU7" style="float: right;" width="145" /><b><i>Kinsey/Trojan study on vibrators omitted lovers' top question </i></b><br />
<br />
Sexual exploration is a fine idea, but we need to be radically honest
with ourselves about researching its effects, lest we overlook signs of
excess.<br />
<br />
A couple of years ago, I wrote <a href="http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/cupids-poisoned-arrow/201106/vibrators-and-other-pleasures-when-moderation-fails" target="_blank" title="Vibrators and Other Pleasures: When 'Moderation' Fails">Vibrators and Other Pleasures: When 'Moderation' Fails</a>.
It included self-reports by women for whom vibrator use was making it
more difficult (or impossible) to climax during intercourse and sex
without toys. More recently, I've checked through hundreds of <a href="http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/cupids-poisoned-arrow/201306/porn-problems-here-come-the-women" target="_blank" title="Porn Problems: Here Come the Women">posts by women</a> on a <a href="http://www.reddit.com/r/NoFap/" target="_blank" title="Link to forum">forum</a>
where thousands of people are experimenting with cutting back on
excessive (in their view) masturbation—usually to Internet porn but
sometimes using other sex aids.<br />
<br />
The same phenomenon is showing up among these women. Real sex, and
even dating, are losing out to the hyperstimulating phenomena of
Internet porn and sex toys—and some women aren't happy with the
uni-directional course their sex lives have taken:<br />
<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<i>First woman: </i>"My biggest problem was using vibration to get
off and it destroying my sensitivity. Tossed my vibrator out completely.
Unfortunately I had to get rid of everything in the house that vibrates
because I kept trying to find a replacement. Goodbye Sonic-Care
face-cleaning tool. Sex is much better. There is no question. My
clitoris was basically dead to anything not battery operated."<br />
<br />
<i>Second woman:</i> "Hopefully a dry spell from myself will get me
more interested in dating. 18-year old women should not be confined to
their rooms with porn and toys. I'd like to graduate from high school
with a dry hand."<br />
<br />
<i>Third woman:</i> "I read <i>hentai</i> quite a bit and masturbate almost every day. I need to quit. I've noticeably lost sensitivity in my clitoris from my vibrator."</blockquote>
<br />
<h3>
Conflict of interest and sidestepping the key question</h3>
<br />
Curious about the research in this area, I was directed to this study by the Kinsey Institute: <a href="http://www.kinseyinstitute.org/publications/PDF/Herbenick%20et%20al%20JSM%202009%20Women%27s%20Vibe%20Final%20in%20Print.pdf" target="_blank" title="Prevalence and Characteristics of Vibrator Use by Women in the">Prevalence and Characteristics of Vibrator Use by Women in the United States: Results from a Nationally Representative Study</a>.
After polling over 1000 women, researchers concluded that the majority
of vibrator users "did not experience any side effects from vibrator
use," and that "vibrator use is a safe activity."<br />
I was struck by two things about this vibrator study's...um...contribution to science. First, <i>it was funded solely by Trojan, a company with an entire division devoted to vibrator sales</i>. Here's <a href="http://www.trojanvibrations.com/category/trust-trojan/vibrator-study.do" target="_blank" title="Trojan webpage on vibrator study">Trojan's webpage</a> touting this "unprecedented, comprehensive Vibrator Study." Major conflict of interest there, folks!<br />
Second, it was anything but comprehensive. It failed to ask the question of most interest to lovers: <i>Did vibrator use make toyless sex with a partner less pleasurable? </i>The researchers themselves acknowledged, and downplayed, this glaring omission:<br />
<blockquote>
Given the historical belief that vibrator use may
habituate women to particular ways of sexual response (i.e.,
experiencing orgasm more easily with a vibrator and less so with a
partner), future research should consider assessing to what extent
women’s sexual response becomes habituated—or, alternatively,
enhanced—in relation to vibrator use.</blockquote>
Notice that the very idea of sex toy-induced problems during toyless
partnered sex is reduced to a mere "historical belief." Moreover,
readers would be unlikely to realize that the researchers had never
asked this vital question about this "historical belief" unless they
read to the end of the study, because the study <i>did </i>ask about genital numbness (as well as irritation, pain, tears and cuts, and inflammation).<br />
<br />
Thus, the casual reader might assume that decreased responsiveness
during sex had been addressed in the "numbness" category. Not so.<br />
<br />
Despite the researchers failure to hone in on the prime question in
their artfully crafted investigation, "numbness" was still the most
commonly reported side effect for vibrator use. In fact, a rather
alarming 16.5% of users reported numbness as a side effect of vibrator
use.<br />
<br />
<h3>
So, <i>does</i> vibrator use interfere with sexual responsiveness?</h3>
<br />
<i>No one yet knows. </i>Under the circumstances, maybe we should
pay more attention to the anecdotal accounts of women who had to
jettison their vibrators to return to normal sexual responsiveness.<br />
There are other ominous signals, too. When <a href="http://www.centerforfemalesexuality.com/pdf/VibratorsinSexTherapy-DrBatshevaMarcus-MedicalJournal.pdf" target="_blank" title="Changes in a Woman’s Sexual Experience and Expectations Following the Introduction of Electric Vibrator Assistance">researchers polled 19</a>
new vibrator users, "Women spoke a great deal about the change in their
arousal and orgasmic response when they began to use the vibrator.
...Significantly, eight women directly stated that they were concerned
with becoming dependent on the vibrator. ...Only three women talked
specifically about their partnered sex lives being enhanced by a
vibrator."<br />
<br />
Incidentally, like many of today's <a href="http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/cupids-poisoned-arrow/201209/young-porn-users-need-longer-recover-their-mojo" target="_blank" title="Young Porn Users Need Longer To Recover Their Mojo">young male porn users</a>, women, too, are reporting that Internet-porn induced masturbation is <a href="http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/cupids-poisoned-arrow/201306/porn-problems-here-come-the-women" target="_blank" title="Porn Problems: Here Come the Women">decreasing their sexual responsiveness</a>
during partnered encounters (hopefully only temporarily). A stubborn
numbed pleasure response in the brain may turn out to be as awkward and
debilitating as numbed nerve endings.<br />
<br />
Incidentally, since the Kinsey vibrator research came out, other <a href="http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21676179" target="_blank" title="Anxious and avoidant attachment, vibrator use, anal sex, and impaired vaginal orgasm">researchers have found</a>
that, "Anxious attachment was associated with lesser vaginal orgasm
consistency, but with higher frequency of vibrator and anal sex orgasms.
Avoidant attachment was associated with higher frequency of vibrator
orgasms."<br />
<br />
In short, it could be unwise to decrease sensitivity to vaginal
intercourse with chronic hyperstimulation of any kind. As an aside, <a href="http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/cupids-poisoned-arrow/201301/lovers-ultimate-sex-hack-karezza" target="_blank" title="Lovers' Ultimate Sex Hack: Karezza">karezza lovers</a>
report that their sensitivity to sexual pleasure and sexual contentment
increase, even though (perhaps because?) they don't go for climax
during intercourse.<br />
<br />
Bottom line: Chronic vibrator use may be a bit of a one-way street
for some users. They need to ask if it is taking them to their desired
destination. Above all, researchers need to exercise full integrity in
their research in order to help sex-toy users chart their course based
on accurate—not purchased—conclusions.<br />
<br />
<h3>
Watch for shaky studies that are too good to be true</h3>
<br />
How often have you glanced at a study abstract's last few lines and
assumed the researchers had reached a legitimate conclusion? This
happens, in part, because we place inordinate faith in the peer-review
process. "Inordinate" because an <a href="http://www.clinicalpsychology.net/bad-science/" title="Bad Science infographic">surprising number of researchers</a> cut corners, cook data, and lie about results. "Clinical psychology is especially rife with misconduct."<br />
<br />
One in three scientists report using questionable research practices,
such as changing a study's design or results due to pressure from a
funding source. Hmmm....</div>
</div>
</div>
Concerned Observershttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17481437202179154037noreply@blogger.com0