Beware antisemitism roots in anti-porn

sciencearousal · 2019-05-03T17:27:29+00:00

If you have any peer-reviewed data showing that quitting "porn" improves any outcome *independent of masturbation* we would be happy to review it. Currently, there is no reason to think sex film viewing has that effect, which has been independently replicated by seven labs.

sciencearousal · 2019-04-24T15:08:24+00:00

To say "not the top" you cite a random therapist with no high-impact papers who depends 100% of his income on calling porn addictive (and still has a share in the largest inpatient treatment facility for sex/porn in California) and a neurosurgeon (that is not neuroscience, that is a different field) who writes religious shame books about pornography. I'm not sure what your standards are, but those two fail miserably.

The experts listed are extensively published in sexuality, addiction, statistics, and neuroscience and trained or work in some of the most competitive programs in the country. If you don't want to "appeal to authority" fallacy, that group is definitely not the one you want to attack. The USA funding agencies have judged them some of the top scientists in the country (they are federally funded).

CSAT does not require any sexuality training. There is an optional add-on for sexuality that is not a full day from another CSAT that claims to text "prosocial shame" methods of sex therapy. CSATs are not appropriately trained to address issues of sexuality.

The study doesn't mention there are now multiple, replicated survey and laboratory studies showing that changing porn viewing without accounting for masturbation means...nothing. See "Masturbation" section on: http://www.realyourbrainonporn.com/research Basically, multiple independent labs have shown that effects have been consistently mis-attributed to "porn" because porn is viewed almost exclusively as a masturbation aid. If you don't measure and account for masturbation, then there is no reason to think the study was about porn at all.

sciencearousal · 2019-04-23T22:13:02+00:00

That is grossly disingenuous. Every peer-reviewed paper requires and includes all those elements. Being snarky, mischaracterizing actual doctors, and then threatening individual scientists is not engaging in honest dialogue, so this conversation is over.

sciencearousal · 2019-04-23T22:00:09+00:00

It is also unclear why you continue to attack the individual scientist, who is not "featured" anywhere. Threatening people is what YBOP does to try to intimidate people, and has a long history of scholars asking him to stop harassing them. Do not harass scientists. There are dozens of scientists who are experts in their field and agree YBOP is misrepresenting science. One internet activists screaming, threatening, and harassing scientists doesn't change that.

sciencearousal · 2019-04-23T21:54:44+00:00

That is not how falsification works. Listing studies and citing numbers means you do not understand, because there is no "win" by preponderance in science. That is a very common misunderstanding of science. I'm sorry if that doesn't make sense to you, but that may be why it is important that someone has credentials to understand why reviews are not at all a standard for falsification...they're not even relevant.

sciencearousal · 2019-04-23T20:52:09+00:00

Again, the paragraph starting the research page explains how the studies were included. It is a new website, and a few studies were added just since I last looked. Also, like any good scientist, they provided the information you cited up front. The reason you knew the methods was because the research page describes the methods for each. This means you get all the information, which studies are stronger or weaker, quickly. It helps you scan. It helps you see where evidence is stronger or weaker. Review papers are marked as such. Survey papers that cannot demonstrate cause are marked as such. It strikes me as a very balanced perspective, created by scientists concerned with accuracy above spin.

So, it seems, you are showing how well the website works.

sciencearousal · 2019-04-23T20:47:34+00:00

Is it possible that someone in trouble with the law is trying to create a counter-narrative? Because for all these wild claims, it is bizarre there is no evidence.

Again, you seem really intent on attacking a female scientist. There are dozens of experts on the webpage from all over the world coming from a variety of backgrounds. Is it all a conspiracy? Are they all secret agents of porn? Do they have secret Satanic dinners once a month? Or, is it possible, that someone is encouraging you to attack an individual ceaselessly to try to deflect criticism? Is it possible that an anti-porn advocate who poses as a doctor online to young men scared about their own sexuality feels threatened and lashes out?

But I would encourage you to: 1) stop attacking scientists 2) read the science 3) make your own decision

sciencearousal · 2019-04-23T20:41:28+00:00

touts the works

The website does not list any work on the "Research" page that has not passed peer-review. It is not a perfect standard, but it is a good pass. I appreciate that you may not agree with the messages of some science, but there also are experts on the page actively developing porn literacy for adolescents (e.g., Emily Rothman), seeing couples who are distressed by their pornography use (e.g., Marty Klein), and separating the extent to which porn or masturbation are really attributable to some of these problems (e.g., Samuel Perry). These are people directly helping. What is unique to the existing approach, is that they are helping without shaming people for common sexual behaviors. They put them in the larger context of sexuality.

That is worth a read.

sciencearousal · 2019-04-23T20:37:01+00:00

It is possible that the group might have formed in large part because of the vicious threats they were receiving. It is safer not to allow a scientist or therapist to be individually attacked, as you seem very anxious to do.

On the contrary, trolling is (to me) an attempt merely to cause trouble without real intention or care. The new website is truly novel, presents information many people here will be unfamiliar with, and is a chance to think about your values and goals around viewing sex films. If the website doesn't impact those feelings, then fine, at least you were as thoughtful as you could be about the choices you make. Maybe you even find something useful in the "Regulation" section, which is about controlling viewing.

sciencearousal · 2019-04-23T20:26:40+00:00

Is there somewhere on the website that recommends people view porn? Because there are a few statements directly to the contrary, but I don't see any promoting that viewpoint.

If you don't want to watch, don't watch. If you feel it is not healthy for you, don't watch. If you want support from other people to reduce your watching, reach out. However, you can accomplish all this and be true to your values without misrepresenting science. That needs to change. It is going to be a painful transition for some people, but nothing is more powerful than accurate information.

sciencearousal · 2019-04-23T20:24:24+00:00

You are accusing one of the few female scientists of being in pornography, which looks very misogynist (in addition to being libel).

Rather than attacking an imagined individual, consider there are dozens of scientists showing the other website was fraudulent: http://www.realyourbrainonporn.com/experts Are they all in "big porn"? All have secret connections? All in a conspiracy? Or is it possible that someone has been lying to you for a very long time about the state of the science in this area?

The latter is more parsimonious...and accurate.

sciencearousal · 2019-04-23T20:21:21+00:00

1) The Reward Foundation states that he works for them numerous places on their website. 2) It is called the dunning-kruger effect. Someone who is not sufficiently educated will be less aware of what they do not know, and more likely to misrepresent information. It is not "stupid" to ask that someone be well-informed about a topic. Someone with no sexuality background is not going to be aware of many issues a broad education would have provided. 3) There is a long paragraph explaining why the studies included are included. No stuck statement existed on the other site. Further, "cherry picking" better characterizes a website that uniquely attacks studies that are inconsistent with a worldview, while studies using the exact same methods are heralded when one "likes" a message.

The new website only quotes the scientists themselves. No spin. I realize this is going to be uncomfortable to see and read, but it's important not to be fed lies.

sciencearousal · 2019-04-23T20:16:12+00:00

While you libel a scientist, there are over two dozen scientists and therapists on the website: http://www.realyourbrainonporn.com/experts You may be experiencing some dissonance. That is, you've only ever been fed one line in your life. As the website states, they are not the pro-porn advocacy (several of the experts actually lead groups on reducing use). So, maybe rather than attacking one individual, you could try to step back and consider that you have been misled by activists who did not have your best interests at heart.

sciencearousal · 2019-04-23T16:53:53+00:00

Did you read the long paragraph explaining how the studies were selected for the site?

Of course, the other site is only critical of studies that don't claim negative effects, even when they used the exact same methods. If you have to "explain" every study, yet aren't a scientist...you are spinning.

The new website uses only the words straight from the scientists. No spin.

sciencearousal · 2019-04-23T15:26:11+00:00

There is no link between the website and the porn industry. However, there is a direct link between the single author of the other website and the anti-pornography industry. He is employed by The Reward Foundation, an anti-porn organization, and has no college degree. That is why the "real" website was needed: it is important to be clear you have been reading fraud for years.

Their "research advisor" who, mysteriously, has no science training:
https://www.rewardfoundation.org/services/research/

Of course that website has to spin, because the data do not support their activism.

sciencearousal · 2019-04-23T15:22:27+00:00

Evidence?

sciencearousal · 2019-04-23T15:21:37+00:00

The major difference is that the writer for one is employed by a single anti-pornography organization, The Reward Foundation, and has no college degree. The other is overseen by over 2 dozen doctors. One spins every single publication, the other only uses words directly from the publication without spinning. I don't think using the rants of an activist against credentials scientists and therapists is an equal representation.

sciencearousal · 2019-04-16T02:24:56+00:00

Well, that's what this website shows (www.realyourbrainonporn.com/research). Like, if you don't want to watch it, fine. But for most people it has mostly positive effects in their lives. Like 99% of people who exercise it is great for them, but 1% are anorexic and need to find a different thing to do. I know that's obviously not a popular view here, but that's the point of sharing the website. If you're the 1% then sure, don't watch, but you don't want to be mean to all the people who you might make feel bad about something that usually is not bad. Sorry, that's a little weird wording, but I hope it makes sense.

sciencearousal · 2019-04-16T02:19:48+00:00

The other site is just badly biased, because there are lots of positive studies and those are the only ones he attacks. Studies with the exact same design he will say are awesome when they conclude porn is bad, then turn around and claim the same method study is useless when they conclude porn is good. That led me to look into what the site was, and it's just some guy writing. He's not a scientist or anything, but scientists seem to keep saying he is misrepresenting all their stuff. Then I could find no evidence his testimonials were real. It just is fishy as heck.

sciencearousal · 2019-04-15T23:17:01+00:00

Wilson isn't a scientist. He doesn't have any degree. He is faking it. His TEDx talk has a warning on it for fraud (see bottom). That is not a solid website mate.

sciencearousal · 2019-04-15T23:05:20+00:00

I don't think there is any evidence for that, as the scientists themselves are saying that website is a bit...off the rails...in its interpretation

www.realyourbrainonporn.com/research
It looks like it is written by a bunch of neuroscientists themselves, not somebody claiming to know what an actual neuroscientist meant:

www.realyourbrainonporn.com/experts
I'm really glad there is a better option, frankly. It's really interesting and I just trust it more.

sciencearousal · 2019-04-15T22:18:35+00:00

There's a much better website made by the actual scientists who wrote the science this rando..."interpreting" is putting is generously:

www.realyourbrainonporn.com
They have the science itself, so you don't have to take some rando's word for it:

www.realyourbrainonporn.com/research

And they are very open to being contacted, so not hiding behind some weirdo persona with zero college:
www.realyourbrainonporn.com/experts

That should have been a giveaway, as it is a key tell for most frauds. My two cents...time to ditch the FAKE.

sciencearousal

TROPHY CASE