>I didn't engage your points because you haven't seen the
>video. Definitely not trying to push any views on you so I
>apologize if it seemed that way. I'm just putting it up for
>debate, and all that I require is that you watch it as it's
>the very thing I'd like to discuss.

Because I think pretty much everything that could be discussed regarding this topic has been discussed on this board already. This video brings nothing new to the table and, in fact, was debunked about as fast as The China Study... Maybe faster.

>You admitted that you turned it off after a couple of minutes,
>so I am not sure how you can comment on the topic or provide
>links with such certainty.

Simple. I googled the presenter's name to see what his angle was. Within the first few minutes of the video you linked he proved he had a bias, so I wanted to see if there was more material out there from him in a similar vein to substantiate my suspicion that he has an agenda. A few hints to this was that only on very rare occasions does he specifically call out a research paper and it's authors, typically deferring to vague shit like "researchers say...". This is a tactic used by guys like this that indicate that, while there may actually be a paper out there that says something along the lines he's presenting, that same paper may also contain additional context that would place the quote in a different perspective and may even be the complete opposite of what he's trying to say.

I found his website which laid out his agenda: He blames his erectile dysfunction on internet porn.

Let's forget the fact that ED has been around far longer than the internet and even longer than photographed pornography. No, it was internet porn that did this horrible thing to him.

I read his Vice interview which pretty much convinced me that this is a guy with an agenda that refuses to acknowledge that scholars (which he is not) have stated the opposite of what he's saying.

Vice: What do you say to those sexologists who look to dismiss the argument that porn can cause ED?

Gary Wilson: Well, they’re wrong. Prominent urologists are starting to write articles about it. On top of that we’ve had two brain studies from Cambridge University and one from the Max Planck institute. The Cambridge one found the same kind of brain changes that occur with drug addicts and 60 percent of those subjects suffered from issues such as ED and loss of libido. The German study correlated the hours of porn use a week and the years of porn use with firstly the structure of the reward circuits. They found a correlation suggesting that those who watch porn actually have less grey matter.

It's this ^^^ that the article I linked debunks.

"Fascinating, rigorous new research has now been done, which actually examined the brains of alleged sex addicts, and guess what? The results are a bit different than the rhetoric. In fact, the results don’t support that sex addiction is real, or reflects any unique brain-related issues at all.

In research invited for submission to the journal Socioaffective Neuroscience of Psychology, authors Steele, Staley, Fong and Prause used EEG testing to examine the effects of visual erotica, on the brains of people who felt they had problems controlling their porn use. 52 sex addicts, including men and women, had their brain’s electrical activity examined while they looked at erotic imagery. Sex addiction theory predicts that these individuals would show brain patterns consistent with that of cocaine addicts, who demonstrate specific electrical changes in the brain’s activity, in response to drug-related cues. Sex addiction proponents, from Rob Weiss to Carnes have long argued that sex and porn are “like cocaine” in the brain.

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. If viewing pornography actually was habituating (or desensitizing), like drugs are, then viewing pornography would have a diminished electrical response in the brain. 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” as has been shown in hundreds of studies."


What's really puzzling is that Gary himself doesn't even believe the shit he spews 100%. He even states:

"VICE: So the main premise of your book is that you can either watch porn or have sex, but you can't have both, right?

Gary Wilson: It is of course possible to have both. But for some guys it is difficult to have both. With internet porn some guys are having not only erectile dysfunction (ED) but they're also having other sexual symptoms such as inability to orgasm, delayed ejaculation, declining libido with real partners, loss of attraction to real partners and also very commonly their sexual tastes at least in porn have morphed into something which is strange and upsetting for them."

"Some guys"??? That's like saying "Some people die from influenza, so everyone must be innoculated from the terror that it 'The Flu'" (protip: the average number of deaths from influenza for the last 31 years is ~23K with a high of 48,614 and a low of 3,349). In a country of over 330M people, I'd say influenza is the least of our worries just like in a world where nearly 3 billion people are on the internet "some guys" having issues controlling their urges to watch porn 24/7 is kinda laughable as a "problem".

But even he acknowledges that it's absolutely possible to consume porn and have a healthy sex life... So what's really the problem??? "Some guys" that can't get it up after watching some Sasha Grey flicks?


Gary Wilson is not a professional. He holds no PHD in any field of study related to ED or even psychology. He's a guy that collected bits and pieces of shit from the internet and wrote a book.



>Maybe they don't pertain at all? I
>just don't follow that type of reasoning.

Within the first couple of links Google provided was an article in Psychology Today that I linked earlier. It specifically called out Gary Wilson and his TED presentation.


>Maybe its important
>to ask oneself why it is so difficult to absorb a certain
>idea. Usually it has something to do with the self, or maybe
>not at all. Shrug

Why is it so difficult for Jews to accept Jesus?
Why is it do difficult for Christians to accept Mohammed
Why is it so difficult for Muslims to accept Baha'u'llah
Why is it so difficult for vegans to accept that people eat meat?
Why is it so difficult for anti-porn people to accept that some people like to watch it?


*Kanye shrug*
---------------------------

forcing myself to actually respond to you is like bathing in ebola virus. - Binlahab

Like there is stupid, and then there is you, and then there is dead. - VAsBestBBW

R.I.P. Disco D