Your Brain on Porn (22 page)

Problem is that this whole cycle is so damaging. Cigarettes were (widely) introduced in
the early 20th century and took decades to regulate. We now know that certain types of foods

are harmful. Yet, with food we are still in phase 2-3. Guess where we are with pornography?

The useful scientific research is not even a few years old.

A consensus about the risks of highspeed internet porn could be decades off despite the efforts of urologists such as Cornell Medical School professor and author Harry Fisch, MD, who warns that too much porn use can make it ‘significantly more difficult’ to get aroused and stay aroused during real sex
.[181]
Most of society will need a lot longer to get up to speed.

A young psychiatrist, himself newly recovered from porn-induced sexual dysfunction
,[182]

pointed out that the internet porn phenomenon is only 10 or 15 years old, and way ahead of the research. He notes:

Medical research works at a snail's pace. With luck we'll be addressing this in 20 or 30

years ... when half the male population is incapacitated. Drug companies can't sell any
medications by someone quitting porn.

We don't have to be quite that pessimistic. Even as I was putting the finishing touches on this book, the first two brain studies on porn users appeared. Both were excellent and published by highly respected journals. They aligned neatly with the self-reports I've been tracking for years. Yet, the massive informal experiment now going on in online forums (and summarized in this book) is some of the best evidence currently available on the effects of porn – and quitting porn.

There’s much more to learn. But meanwhile, make your own experiment free of everyone else's

agendas. As one ex-user wrote:

Once you've experienced the truth about porn for yourself you can no longer be deceived

by propaganda about porn, whether it comes from the religious, the liberals or the porn
producers. They all have their agendas, but you have knowledge and can create your own
opinion based on what is best for you.

Understand the Science of Misinformation

If you're wondering why there's not yet a consensus on the effects of internet porn despite the swell of warnings, you may find the history of the Tobacco Wars instructive. Years ago, most everyone smoked including movie stars on screen. People loved puffing. It calmed the nerves, offered a predictable buzz and looked sophisticated. How could such a wonderful activity
really
be detrimental? Was nicotine
truly
addictive? When tar showed up in cadaver lungs incredulous smokers preferred to blame asphalt.

Causation studies could not be done because they would have entailed creating two random groups of people and asking one to smoke for years while the other refrained. Definitely unethical.

Meanwhile, other kinds of evidence mounted that smoking was causing health problems and that people had great difficulty quitting: correlation studies, anecdotal reports from physicians and patients,
etc.
Prospective studies, which compare a group of similar subjects whose smoking habits differ, took decades.

During this time, studies fostered by the tobacco industry found no evidence of harm or addiction.

Predictably, every time new evidence of harm appeared, the industry trotted out its ‘studies’ to create the impression that the authorities were in conflict – and that it was far too soon to quit smoking. For example, the head of the Tobacco Industry Research Committee said, ‘If smoke in the lungs was a sure-fire cause of cancer we'd all have it. We'd all have had it long ago. The cause is much more complicated than that’. He also dismissed statistical connections as not proving ‘causation’.

Ultimately, however, reality could not be denied. Smoking claimed more and more victims. At the

same time, addiction research became more sophisticated and revealed the physiology of
how
nicotine produces addiction. In the end, the tobacco industry's spell was broken. These days, people still smoke but they do so knowing the risks. Efforts to paint a false picture about the harmlessness of smoking have ceased.

Meanwhile, much unnecessary damage had been done. Critically important health information, which should have taken a few years to become common knowledge, instead took decades – while

fabricated uncertainty protected tobacco profits.

Big Tobacco's campaign to cast doubt on the link between smoking and disease is now a classic

case study in a science called agnotology:
the study of the cultural production of ignorance.

Agnotology investigates the deliberate sowing of public misinformation and doubt in a scientific area. As Brian McDougal, the author of
Porned Out,
put it,

It’s hard to imagine that a whole generation chain-smoked cigarettes without having any

idea how harmful they are, but the same thing is happening today with online pornography.

Is internet porn the new smoking? Almost all young men with internet access view porn and the

percentages of women viewers are growing. Whenever something becomes the norm, there's an unexamined assumption that it must be harmless or 'normal', that is, that it cannot produce
abnormal
physiological results. However, that proved not to be the case with smoking.

And, just as with smoking, causality studies cannot be done. It would be unethical to create two

groups of kids and keep one group as ‘porn virgins’ while setting the other group free on today's internet porn for years to see what percentage lose attraction to real partners, can't quit, or develop porn-induced sexual dysfunctions and extreme fetish tastes.

Studies that follow porn users and non-users over years may never be done, especially in those

under 18. Even finding a group that doesn't use porn and another group who accurately report their porn usage would be quite challenging. In contrast, studying smoking was easy. You either smoked or you didn't, and you were perfectly happy to say what brand of cigarette, how many per day, and when you started.

Meanwhile, other kinds of evidence are mounting that some internet porn users experience severe

problems. Researchers are reporting unprecedented ED in young men
,[183] [184] [185]
physicians are reporting that their patients recover after they give up internet porn
,[186]
and brain scientists are seeing worrisome brain changes even in moderate internet porn users
[187]
as well as porn addicts.

[188]
Addiction treatment facilities are seeing increases in internet porn-facilitated addiction.

Lawyers are noting a rise of divorces in which internet porn use is a factor. Young people are reporting surprising changes in fetish-porn tastes, which often fade if they quit using.

In academia, dozens of correlation studies have been done on pornography's effects. Many reveal

associations between internet porn use and depression, anxiety, social discomfort, relationship dissatisfaction, fetish tastes,
etc.
In some men, porn use also correlates with abusive behaviour towards women
.[189]
Correlation does not amount to causation. But do we want to disregard possible side effects in pursuit of a nonessential activity like screen-induced climax?

At the same time, a small, vocal group of sexologists continues to insist that internet porn is harmless, or even beneficial, citing their own work. They dismiss correlation studies that contradict their views and call for ‘double-blind studies’ before they will take the alleged harms seriously.

While that sounds rigorously scientific – who, after all, could be against something as scientifically respectable as the ‘double-blind’? – it is in fact profoundly silly. ‘Double-blind’ means that neither the investigator nor the subject knows that a variable has been altered. For example, neither knows who is receiving drug or placebo. ‘Single-blind’ means the investigator knows but the subject doesn't. It should be evident that neither type of study is possible in the case of porn use. The subject will always know that he or she has stopped using porn. If you hear anyone calling for ‘double-blind studies’ in this context you can be sure of one thing: they don't know what they're talking about.

As I say, the best causation experiment currently possible is being done right now by thousands of people in various online forums. Porn users are removing a single variable that they all have in common: porn use. This ‘study’ is not perfect. Other variables are also at work in their lives. But that would be equally true in a formal study testing the effects of, say, antidepressants. Subjects will always have different diets, relationship situations, childhoods and so forth.

Some experts believe that porn-addiction deniers are not unlike the shills of the tobacco industry.

[190]
The difference is that their motives often appear to stem from uncritical 'sex positivity'. They also deny the complaints of internet porn users experiencing unprecedented 'sex-negative'

dysfunctions, such as delayed ejaculation or inability to orgasm during sex, erectile dysfunction and loss of attraction to real partners.

I am sceptical about the limited existing research that finds no evidence of harm from internet porn use for several reasons:

1.

There is mounting hard science, that is, research by neuroscientists about internet addiction,

porn use, and sex itself, which unravels the mystery of how chronic overconsumption

causes predictable brain changes.

2.

When internet addiction researchers investigated cause,
[191]
they found a
reversal
of addiction-related brain changes and symptoms after internet addicts stopped using. This is

consistent with thousands of self-reports in online internet porn recovery forums.

3.

Solid new research isolating the brains of internet porn users is now published,
[192]
[193]

with more on the way. All of the brain research on internet addictions (videogaming, gambling, social media, pornography) is lining up neatly with decades of substance

addiction research. Addiction is addiction and neuroplasticity a fact of life.

4.

In contrast, much sexology research that finds porn harmless is, on close inspection, flawed. The limited questions asked, the weight assigned to them, and how results are reported produce the illusion that more porn use equals greater benefits
.[194]

Education – But What Kind?

What happened when researchers recently asked questions based on teens' reality instead of researchers' theories? The data promptly line up with the anecdotes in this book.

A new study on anal sex among men and women ages 16 to 18,
[195]
analysed a large qualitative sample from three diverse sites in England. Said the researchers: 'Few young men or women reported finding anal sex pleasurable and both expected anal sex to be painful for women.'

Why were couples engaging in anal sex if neither party found it pleasurable? ‘The main reasons

given for young people having anal sex were that men wanted to copy what they saw in pornography, and that “it's tighter”. And ''People must like it if they do it” (made alongside the seemingly contradictory expectation that it will be painful for women).'

This looks like a perfect example of adolescent brain training; 'This is how it's done; this is what I should do.' Also at work is a desire to boast to one's peers about being able to duplicate the acts seen in porn.

However, as hypothesized in the Max Planck study
,[196]
today's porn users may also be seeking more ‘edgy’ sexual practices and more intense stimulation (‘tighter’) due to reduced sensitivity to pleasure. In the latter event, teens need more than ‘discussions of pleasure, pain, consent and coercion’ (recommended by the anal-sex researchers). They need to learn how chronic

overstimulation can alter their brains and tastes.

Already, teens are figuring out that porn is having unwanted effects on their lives. A June, 2014

poll of 18-year olds from across the U
K[197]
found the following:

- Pornography can be addictive: Agree: 67% Disagree: 8%

- Pornography can have a damaging impact on young people's views of sex or relationships:

Agree: 70% Disagree: 9%

- Pornography has led to pressure on girls or young women to act a certain way: Agree: 66%

Disagree: 10%

- Pornography leads to unrealistic attitudes toward sex: Agree: 72% Disagree: 7%

- There's nothing wrong with watching pornography: Agree: 47% Disagree: 19%

Is it possible that the teens who grew up with streaming porn and then watched the effects of smartphones on themselves and their peers know more about the impact of internet porn than those who are endeavouring to educate them? Only 19% of teens saw something wrong with watching pornography, but more than two thirds perceived porn's harmful effects. These results suggest that many young people don't fit into the accepted frame for debates about porn. They don't think it's wrong to watch pornography. That is, they (presumably) don't reject it on puritanical grounds or out of 'sex negative' shame. Yet many of those who have no objection to porn as such can see that it causes serious problems. It seems futile to try to keep adolescents away from explicit material altogether and recklessly irresponsible not to inform them properly about its potential for harm. This is a theme of this book: we need to listen to today's users and their peers because the phenomenon is moving so fast.