The Neuroscience of NoFap | Why Pornography Changes the Brain
Escaping Porn Addiction | Eli Nash | TEDxFortWayne
I believe porn is the root cause of a lot of problems, and I can gladly say I've quit starting this No Nut November.
Pornography, and the destruction it causes.
Posts
Total:
55
-->
@MisterChris
imagine being addicted to porn LMAO
-->
@skittlez09
you laugh until you realize that porn addiction is widespread (about 54% of men) and the effects are severe ("Studies show between a 600% and 3000% increase in erectile dysfunction among young men since the emergence of Internet pornography." Not to mention the extensive effects in your brain that I linked above) and the withdrawals are very similar to the ones experienced by drug addicts.
-->
@MisterChris
lol ha ha
-->
@skittlez09
very mature.
-->
@MisterChris
i refuse to believe half of men decide to jack off instead of having sex
-->
@skittlez09
That's a false dichotomy, among other things.
-->
@MisterChris
Today, porn addiction, or problematic pornography use, affects approximately 5–8% of the adult population. People who are addicted to cyber-porn spend at least 11–12 hours viewing porn online every week, though this amount can be much higher.
- a porn addict spends 11-12 hrs every week do u think half of males do this?
-->
@MisterChris
also the 54 % statistic is misleading because it says
54% of men polled that they visited porn websites at least frequently.
frequently doesnt translate to addiction
if u were talking about the 50 % statistic that was for specifically religious men
-->
@skittlez09
That's bs. It's such an extraordinarily high metric it excludes the VAST majority of men who use it in an addictive fashion but aren't using it 3284238472908347 hours a day.
Wikipedia gives a more sensible definition, for example: Pornography addiction is an addiction model of compulsive sexual activity with concurrent use of pornographic material, despite negative consequences to one's physical, mental, social, or financial well-being.
Basically, compulsive use despite negative consequences.
Furthermore, let's say I use cocaine on the daily. That would indicate I am a cocaine addict. It is not a given, but all evidence points to it because
a. Cocaine is addictive
and
b. The more I use it the more likely it is that I will become an addict.
It follows that if 54% of men use porn (once again, known to be addictive) frequently, and 50% of religious men (the ones supposed to be morally OPPOSED to pornography!!) are addicted, then we can estimate about 50% of men are addicted. Let's also not ignore that only about 16% of the world is not religious.
Finally, given premise B, even if the percentage is low now, that will not last for long.
-->
@MisterChris
IP itself is not dangerous until used daily https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5387769/
-->
@seldiora
That does not affect my argument.
-->
@MisterChris
plus your arg is more against addiction in general than the flaws of pornography.
If I am so addicted to giving money away that I am in complete poverty, my philanthropy destroyed my life
If I am addicted to eating and become obese and fail to work out, the normal necessity to life, destroyed my life
addiction kills, not pornography
everything good in moderation
"Up until the last decade, rates of ED were low in sexually active men under 40, and did not begin to rise steeply until thereafter [1,2]. A 1999 major cross-sectional study reported erectile dysfunction in 5%, and low sexual desire in 5% of sexually active men, ages 18 to 59 [3], and a 2002 meta-analysis of erectile-dysfunction studies reported consistent rates of 2% in men under 40 (except for the preceding study) [2]. These data were gathered before Internet “porn tube sites” enabled wide access to sexually explicit videos with no download required. The first of these “tube sites” appeared in September 2006 [4].
In contrast, recent studies on ED and low sexual desire document a sharp increase in prevalence of such dysfunctions in men under 40. One clear demonstration of this phenomenon relates to ED, and compares very large samples, all of which were assessed using the same (yes/no) question about ED as part of the Global Study of Sexual Attitudes and Behavior (GSSAB). In 2001–2002, it was administered to 13,618 sexually active men in 29 countries [5]. A decade later, in 2011, the same (yes/no) question from the GSSAB was administered to 2737 sexually active men in Croatia, Norway and Portugal [6]. The first group, in 2001–2002, were aged 40–80. The second group, in 2011, were 40 and under. Based on the findings of historical studies cited earlier, older men would be expected to have far higher ED rates than the negligible rates of younger men [2,7]. However, in just a decade, things changed radically. The 2001–2002 rates for older men 40–80 were about 13% in Europe [5]. By 2011, ED rates in young Europeans, 18–40, ranged from 14%–28% [6].
.....The researchers also noted that sexual dysfunctions are subject to underreporting biases related to stigmatization [14]."
Look, I understand there are some contestable claims when it comes to how porn relates to sexual problems, but I can't think of any other variable that could even begin to explain these findings, especially when the causal links are so clear.
-->
@seldiora
Then it is like alcohol. You can use it in moderation. Sure, I'm on board.
Problem is, it isn't being moderated. People are addicted and it is causing some big health problems.
Look, I'm not advocating for a ban, I'm just saying the benefits of quitting seem to outweigh the costs.
-->
@skittlez09
Your source, Elsevier, is an open-access publisher, meaning, in essence, they're a vanity publisher because to publish in their "gold access," which reaches the most potential readers, the author pays a publishing fee. The best open-access peer-reviewed journals do not charge a publishing fee. That's what their own website says. That doesn't say much for reliability and credibility.
-->
@MisterChris
fantastic post, pron is evil.
-->
@MisterChris
Does it 'really matter if porn possesses the capability for harm?
There's therapists one can talk to I imagine, if they wanted help finding ways to stop using so much, or at all.
Same way a person can see a dietician or a trainer of they're eating too many cheeseburgers and not exercising.
Cocaine, sounds an uneven example to porn, but eh, I haven't done any research, so I have no sources or backing to my opinion.
I'd disagree with your statement on it not being moderated, as it 'is in ways. Laws about what type can be produced or owned, copyright, worker laws.
Still, I hesitate to say the 'consumption 'amount of it needs moderation, it's effect is hardly the same as a person chugging alcohol destroying their liver, being belligerent, blacking out.
Same with video games, except in extreme example, parents letting children die because too busy gaming, or dying from not sleeping for too long and consuming too many energy drinks.
But again, it's not something I've researched really.
-->
@Lemming
The moderation hardcore porn has, if you're at all familiar with it, is very minimal... and it is easily stimulating enough to cause all the neurological issues quantified in the video I provided. While these issues certainly aren't blacking out or anything, they are serious enough to cause ED rates to skyrocket and for men's mental health to decline. If you would rather watch porn than get with a real woman, power to you, but I am trying to warn everyone else that the negatives of abuse may outweigh the positives for you in the long run...
So in that sense I will agree that people should have the freedom to watch it with little moderation, but I think it should be something that society emphasizes should be moderated, in sort of the same way most people drink alcohol in moderation even though they could abuse it.
As for cocaine being uneven... it is a surprisingly close comparison when comparing the brain of a frequent porn user and a frequent cocaine user actually. While the biological consequences may be uneven, I think the addictiveness of the two is surprisingly similar. Although yes, cocaine is more addictive.
TL;DR: While I'm sure many get along fine with watching large quantities of porn, for a large amount of people, porn can be destructive and they should be aware of that fact
-->
@MisterChris
Good points, I think.
-->
@MisterChris
So far the evidence is pretty compelling, I'd have to agree with you on this one, though I do plan on doing further research. Just, what I've looked at so far in terms of studies and such puts the evidence on your side.
-->
@MisterChris
I would agree
Pornography stimulates primary drive, unnecessarily.
Here’s a health tip from WebMD that might sound pretty good to many guys: Have more sex, or masturbate more, and you might lower your odds of getting prostate cancer. Research suggests that the more often men ejaculate, the less likely they are to have the disease.
-->
@FLRW
indeed, but porn overrides those health benefits for many men. For a lot of people, might want to masturbate with no pornography.
-->
@MisterChris
The Neuroscience of NoFap | Why Pornography Changes the Brain
So you referenced a guy referencing a book which references studies, rather than referencing studies.
: /
Escaping Porn Addiction | Eli Nash | TEDxFortWayne
Stop referencing videos and just post the studies so we can analyse them, instead of posting videos. Otherwise, there isn't substantial material to debate.
I believe porn is the root cause of a lot of problems, and I can gladly say I've quit starting this No Nut November.
So because porn addiction is bad (an extreme), you went to the other extreme and quit pornography altogether, based on some Youtube videos.
This is a bad OP.
-->
@MgtowDemon
It's not meant to be a debate constructive, genius. It's meant to expose you to some of the arguments in favor of my position. If you want more substantial sources read the rest of the thread. Stop being a dick.
-->
@MisterChris
It's not meant to be a debate constructive, genius. It's meant to expose you to some of the arguments in favor of my position.
The whole point of a *debate* website is to facilitate debate. When you post substance-bereft "arguments", you stymie future posters from engaging in the topic to a worthwhile degree. The fact that you bothered to cite Youtube videos indicates that you understand you should have sourced your arguments, yet were too lazy to find appropriate ones. If you're merely wishing to post your feelings about a topic and not have a debate, that is what the personal section is for.
If you want more substantial sources read the rest of the thread.
Part of making a worthwhile OP is constructing arguments with data and scientific research in the OP (Exceptions apply. For example, a philosophy thread doesn't require data and scientific research). You are the one constructing the "arguments", not the responders, so you should be properly citing your arguments, if you want your opinion to be taken seriously. It shouldn't be the work of the responders to do the job you should have done.
Stop being a dick.
That's an unprofessional comment for a moderator to make.
-->
@MgtowDemon
The whole point of a *debate* website is to facilitate debate. When you post substance-bereft "arguments", you stymie future posters from engaging in the topic to a worthwhile degree. The fact that you bothered to cite Youtube videos indicates that you understand you should have sourced your arguments, yet were too lazy to find appropriate ones. If you're merely wishing to post your feelings about a topic and not have a debate, that is what the personal section is for.
No you jackass, if you wanna have a debate go to the debate section instead of flat out calling the op "bad".
Part of making a worthwhile OP is constructing arguments with data and scientific research in the OP (Exceptions apply. For example, a philosophy thread doesn't require data and scientific research). You are the one constructing the "arguments", not the responders, so you should be properly citing your arguments, if you want your opinion to be taken seriously. It shouldn't be the work of the responders to do the job you should have done.
it's not just "youtube videos". they're youtube videos from RELIABLE Sources, like TED and literally a guy who is stating facts based on reliable SOURCES like you asked for.
That's an unprofessional comment for a moderator to make.
You're an unprofessional guy altogether.
-->
@MgtowDemon
Stop being a dick.That's an unprofessional comment for a moderator to make.
Yes, and I will accept whatever punishment I incur for pointing out that you're being a dick.
-->
@Crocodile
No you jackass, if you wanna have a debate go to the debate section instead of flat out calling the op "bad".
Calm down.
I'm not sure what you think a *debate* website's forums should be used for if not substantive discussion. Having a *science* forum wherein people don't post research to support their views is anti-scientific. There are designated areas for you to post your feelings, but this isn't one of them.
it's not just "youtube videos". they're youtube videos from RELIABLE Sources, like TED and literally a guy who is stating facts based on reliable SOURCES like you asked for.
I'll explain it again in more detail because you didn't comprehend it the first time: responders cannot engage with Youtube videos that don't have data/papers/research. I can't see what data the Youtube videos are referring to without manually finding the material myself. Hence, instead of obstructing this process by filtering it through a Youtube video, it would be superior to post the data/papers/research referred to in the videos. That way, we can discuss the actual content, instead of someone's supposed interpretation of data/papers/research.
You're an unprofessional guy altogether.
If you're a real crocodile then you should be munching animals, instead of trash-posting on a debate website.