I'd love to see it provided it's entirely free. I suspect the peer reviews were by peers in other anti-porn agencies, much like the other 'evidence' on their website. The info on the resources page of each of these agencies reads like a web ring, each linking back to the other as a source. Their promo video specifically says "porn is as addictive as heroin and as destructive as alcohol." There is no " * " denoting that statement as unproven opinion. I'll wait to see when this video is released.
As a porn addict I can tell you that Pornography is very destructive and controlling. What these people are doing is trying to help people understand the destructive nature of Porn.
these guys are clowns, the area that they are from has an UNBELIEVABLE high rate of sex offenders and guess what? most of them are mormon or lds (whatever they want to try and hide) Maybe try to make your "church" a little more decent and you will gain some followers instead of just throwing out whatever info you can to get people's attention!
Jason is correct that there is a growing body of evidence, but whether it is "scientific" is questionable. Most of the people pushing the idea of pornography "addiction" are connected to religious or moralistic groups - like the one sponsoring this "conference" - and many of the "scientists" make all or part of their living from the also growing pornography addiction treatment industry. Dr. Hilton is a neurosurgeon. If he was talking about surgical treatment, he'd be an expert. Is he?
I can understand your skepticism. Everybody has an agenda. If we are going to discuss motives, however, let's not forget to mention the pornography industry that brings in many billions of dollars every year. Do you think they are motivated to portray pornography as acceptable, mainstream, harmless fun? If you want to understand the true costs of pornography, read the stories of the women who have been devastated by their husband's addictions.
Jason - I don't need to "read the stories" - I'm a Clinical Counselor, and have heard the stories - from both women AND men - directly. But stories will never be enough to convince me to morph a behavioral excess into a medical problem (addiction). Your suggestion that I consider the motives of the pornography industry strikes me as disingenuous. I have never heard of anyone in that industry pretending to have altruistic motives - they are very honest about being "in it for the money."
Correct me if I am mistaken; you seem to be saying that you have a greater trust in the pornography industry because they are "honestly" in it for the money, whereas those against pornography likely have a "hidden" religious or moral agenda and therefore can't be taken seriously.
Jason - I have to assume that you are being deliberately obtuse when you respond to peripheral points, but ignore the main thrust of a post. So - I will make it simple for you. I never said that I "trust" the pornography industry - I responded to your rather silly suggestion that pornographers' agendas are hidden. They are not, while I do tend to question the motives of those who try to hide their religious or moralistic aims behind the veneer of "science." Simple enough?
Ogler, i was surprised to see that you are a counselor. I have been addicted to porn since I was a young child. I am now 41 years old and just barely healing. I have been clean just over one year. I am seperated from my wife and was almost divorced. I have hurt many people but mostly my wife. She is still devastated. You say you have heard the stories directly and yet you still seem to be minimizing the problem. I would think a counselor would be adament against porn and help stop it.
I'm sure you have engaged in the BEHAVIOR of looking at porn since you were a child, and that this has led to negative consequences. But bad outcomes do not automatically make this an "addiction." The brain is changed when we learn a phone number, so this is not enough to prove an "addiction." Once a bad behavior has been made into a medical problem, it's only a small step to a "disability" - and then "excuse." I encourage my patients to take responsibility for their own behavior.
My counselor insists on responsibilty and acountability addiction or not. I wasn't addicted because I looked and had bad consequences. I was addicted because I could not stop despite continued bad consequences. I tried everything to stop. I finally got enough pain I was ready. I also got a therapist who made sense of my abuse, the abuse I did to others, and how to experience pain and not hide from it with porn. I have been free from porn addiction for over a year.
But being "addicted" to porn does not have the same destructive effects on your body. It doesn't impair your ability to drive. It doesn't cause violent crime like illegal drugs. Its not a good thing and its horrible for the women involved but its not on par with drugs or alcohol.
Pornography addiction actually does cause precisely the same kind of brain damage that drugs cause. It all comes down to chemicals in the brain. Impaired driving is the least of our worries, how about the impaired ability to love and destroyed family relationships. As far as violent crime; that is very debatable but I encourage you to do your own research.
Far from it. There is an ever-increasing body of scientific evidence that pornography addiction has the same effects on the brain as drug addiction. Dr. Hilton, a neurosurgeon and keynote speaker for this conference, will be addressing this very subject.
what about addiction to sugar? or addiction to chocolate or video games? what of those similarities on the brain? Your group is only targeting pornography because it has specific moral objections to it, not because of any dangers of addiction. Keep your moral objections in your church, where they belong, and quit trying to pass these seminars off as science based when they are clearly faith based.
Do you have kids? Do you let them eat sugar? Choclate? Do you let them play video games? I hope you don't let them watch porn. There is quite a difference. I'm willing to bet the point of the conference is educate how damaging porn is. I know how damaging it is first hand. I eat sugar, choclate; I play video games but they don't destroy my boundaries and change the way I view other people like porn did. I'm finally getting my life back in order and cannot believe the damage porn caused.
These same arguments could be applied to anything, which was my point. Just because you had an addiction to porn doesn't mean others will have the same. Your inability to control your damaging actions was the problem, not porn. Just like the obese child who cannot control the craving for sugar or chocolate or can't convince themselves to step away from the game controller, you could not pull yourself away from porn. That is not the fault of porn, but rather your weakness (not that you are weak).
I see your argument better. However, I would like to point out that some things are both "addictive" and "harmful". Sugar and choclate are neither. Drugs are "adictive" and "harmful" they hurt your body and brain. Porn is "adictive" and "harmful" it changes your perception of boundaries, and women. You start to believe all women want sex all the time regardless marriage or other boundaries. You start to believe women flirting want sex. You see women as objects and treat them so etc...
I contend that sugar or chocolate addictions are indeed harmful, leading to sedentary lifestyle, weight gain, diabetes, heart disease etc. The subject of porn addiction is highly subjective. There is no standard diagnosis for porn addiction. What is addictive and controlling to you is simply visually stimulating to others. What you found to be destructive or controlling many millions of others see daily and have no problem with. Addictive substances don't behave that way. It's a morality issue.
Sugar and choclate are not addictions. You satiate sooner or later. You may be able to lump them in with overeating but thats it. I agree that not everyone addicted is addicted to the same thing. I agree the problem is inside the person and they can get help. (I did.) However, addictive things are destructive to all wether they are addicted or not. Illegal drugs are destructive to all. Overeating is destructive. Porn is destructive. Ruins families and marriages. There is no satiation.
Sugar and chocolate are not addictions according to you; just because you get full doesn't mean you stop desiring them. The other things you list as destructive (both legal AND illegal drugs and porn) have millions of users that would disagree with you that they are destructive to all. There are millions of people who watch porn with no marital or familial problems and millions more who use drugs and live normal, productive lives. This group seeks to equate porn with meth or heroin, it's absurd.
when you get full you stop. With porn, gambling, drugs, you never get "full". You overdose, look at porn until you get caught or fired or scared enough, lose all your money, eat so much you through up,etc. With choclate you eat too much get full and feel bad. Of course the users of destructive things would disagree. They are in denial just like I was. Everyone I know has marital and family problems without porn. Let alone with porn. They live normal lives on illegal drugs? denial.
Where is your evidence to support the millions who use illegal drugs and live normal productive lives? What is your definition of normal and productive? Not getting caught? This group seeks to point out the destructive nature of porn. It is destructive. There is evidence that the natural addictions, IE porn, pathological gambling, and overeating, damage the brain the same way meth does. There is actual, real, diversified, research showing this. This group just shows the research.
Again you equate use with addiction. this just isn't true. people drink alcohol, but that doesn't mean they are addicts. The same can be said with illegal (in the US) drugs. I should clarify marital problems as being directly related to porn viewing; Of course everyone has problems. Research means nothing without peer review in credible scientific journals. Until then it's just another hypothesis. This group only shows research that it deems family friendly. This is a reflection of its morals.
The problem with the studies, research, etc. is that they all start with a forgone conclusion and then seek to prove it using technology. This is NOT science. Also, changes in the brain are not definitively damage. Everything we see and do changes our brain. My problem with this group and others like it is that they spout this stuff off as if it's a proven fact when it's clearly not. At the MOST it's debatable, but they never mention that or anything that is counter to their puritanical agenda.
I certainly agree that not all people who use addictive things are not neccasarily addicted. I agree that is obvious. My point is that if someone is going to be addicted it is going to be to some thing "addictive". Furthermore I argue that porn, alcohol, illegal drugs etc are "addictive" hence the laws in place, age limits etc. Sugar and choclate are not "addictive", hence no laws regarding their use. Did you go to the conference? Did you see the research? You would have been impressed.
Again I'll say: If the evidence is so compelling and there is a causal relationship between viewing porn and brain 'damage,' then the 'researcher' should submit their findings for peer review in a credible scientific journal. Until then it is not impressive, it's an affront to free speech.
Again I'll say: if you had went to the conference you would have seen many findings reported in scientific journals. Journal after journal. Diverse journals. Diverse research. It was impressive. I invite you to check it out if you really are interested.
Well, seeing how the show was put on across the state I'll have to settle for what google tells me. Right now it's telling me that the CfD website is down and there is no published research. Perhaps, since you appear knowledgeable you could link some of those science journals? Google isn't returning anything in favor of this argument for "porn causes brain damage." Well, nothing more than opinion anyway.
I don't know what is on the website. The group brought in a specialist neurosurgeon who had compiled all the research. I went to the confernece in rexburg and a gentlemen filmed the conference professionally free of charge. I am willing to bet that video will come available and will have all the research. The research showed actual brain scans showing the damage and was explained by the doc mentioned above. It was very well documented and quite impressive. It is very new.
This is exactly my argument. There is no scientific backing of this hypothesis. Brain scans and online polls and one doctor's opinion of the scans does not equal factual backing of said hypothesis, yet it is presented as being scientifically proven just because they used a hi-tech device and had a Dr do the presentation. Neither the video nor the presentation equals peer review. The Dr's interpretations of the scans and research are designed to support his hypothesis, not question it.
I invite you to check out the presentation. There were no online polls. It wasn't the docs opinion that was presented. The scans were part of the peer reviews being presented. The doc presented the peer reviews from the journals. It was nice to have a doc, who knows the brain like he does, explian the research that is out there. Not his research. He explained "the" research. Every single thing he showed had the journal article and names of those responsible for research. Check it out.
He did not present it as scientifically proven. He said from the very beginning that he invited any of us to see his compilation of research and judge for ourselves. It was presented as proof. Only as information. The research shown is just research not proof. Informational. But it was certainly compelling. They are certainly on to something. The conference was put on to give info not prove anything or push hidden agendas. Check it out. It's pretty cool.
I'd love to see it provided it's entirely free. I suspect the peer reviews were by peers in other anti-porn agencies, much like the other 'evidence' on their website. The info on the resources page of each of these agencies reads like a web ring, each linking back to the other as a source. Their promo video specifically says "porn is as addictive as heroin and as destructive as alcohol." There is no " * " denoting that statement as unproven opinion. I'll wait to see when this video is released.
babble0n 2 years ago
As a porn addict I can tell you that Pornography is very destructive and controlling. What these people are doing is trying to help people understand the destructive nature of Porn.
CHEVDUCK 2 years ago
these guys are clowns, the area that they are from has an UNBELIEVABLE high rate of sex offenders and guess what? most of them are mormon or lds (whatever they want to try and hide) Maybe try to make your "church" a little more decent and you will gain some followers instead of just throwing out whatever info you can to get people's attention!
Fuzzy4kodiak 2 years ago
wow. I'm not gonna get in on this, but that was pretty insane dude. cool your jets, Turbo.
addapann 2 years ago
Jason is correct that there is a growing body of evidence, but whether it is "scientific" is questionable. Most of the people pushing the idea of pornography "addiction" are connected to religious or moralistic groups - like the one sponsoring this "conference" - and many of the "scientists" make all or part of their living from the also growing pornography addiction treatment industry. Dr. Hilton is a neurosurgeon. If he was talking about surgical treatment, he'd be an expert. Is he?
Ogler57 2 years ago 2
I can understand your skepticism. Everybody has an agenda. If we are going to discuss motives, however, let's not forget to mention the pornography industry that brings in many billions of dollars every year. Do you think they are motivated to portray pornography as acceptable, mainstream, harmless fun? If you want to understand the true costs of pornography, read the stories of the women who have been devastated by their husband's addictions.
JasonTJenkins 2 years ago
Jason - I don't need to "read the stories" - I'm a Clinical Counselor, and have heard the stories - from both women AND men - directly. But stories will never be enough to convince me to morph a behavioral excess into a medical problem (addiction). Your suggestion that I consider the motives of the pornography industry strikes me as disingenuous. I have never heard of anyone in that industry pretending to have altruistic motives - they are very honest about being "in it for the money."
Ogler57 2 years ago 2
Correct me if I am mistaken; you seem to be saying that you have a greater trust in the pornography industry because they are "honestly" in it for the money, whereas those against pornography likely have a "hidden" religious or moral agenda and therefore can't be taken seriously.
JasonTJenkins 2 years ago
Jason - I have to assume that you are being deliberately obtuse when you respond to peripheral points, but ignore the main thrust of a post. So - I will make it simple for you. I never said that I "trust" the pornography industry - I responded to your rather silly suggestion that pornographers' agendas are hidden. They are not, while I do tend to question the motives of those who try to hide their religious or moralistic aims behind the veneer of "science." Simple enough?
Ogler57 2 years ago 2
I never suggested that pornographers' agendas are hidden. I merely thought it was fair play to mention the motives on both sides.
JasonTJenkins 2 years ago
Ogler, i was surprised to see that you are a counselor. I have been addicted to porn since I was a young child. I am now 41 years old and just barely healing. I have been clean just over one year. I am seperated from my wife and was almost divorced. I have hurt many people but mostly my wife. She is still devastated. You say you have heard the stories directly and yet you still seem to be minimizing the problem. I would think a counselor would be adament against porn and help stop it.
travusal 2 years ago
I'm sure you have engaged in the BEHAVIOR of looking at porn since you were a child, and that this has led to negative consequences. But bad outcomes do not automatically make this an "addiction." The brain is changed when we learn a phone number, so this is not enough to prove an "addiction." Once a bad behavior has been made into a medical problem, it's only a small step to a "disability" - and then "excuse." I encourage my patients to take responsibility for their own behavior.
Ogler57 2 years ago
My counselor insists on responsibilty and acountability addiction or not. I wasn't addicted because I looked and had bad consequences. I was addicted because I could not stop despite continued bad consequences. I tried everything to stop. I finally got enough pain I was ready. I also got a therapist who made sense of my abuse, the abuse I did to others, and how to experience pain and not hide from it with porn. I have been free from porn addiction for over a year.
travusal 2 years ago
But being "addicted" to porn does not have the same destructive effects on your body. It doesn't impair your ability to drive. It doesn't cause violent crime like illegal drugs. Its not a good thing and its horrible for the women involved but its not on par with drugs or alcohol.
doctender77 2 years ago
Pornography addiction actually does cause precisely the same kind of brain damage that drugs cause. It all comes down to chemicals in the brain. Impaired driving is the least of our worries, how about the impaired ability to love and destroyed family relationships. As far as violent crime; that is very debatable but I encourage you to do your own research.
JasonTJenkins 2 years ago
I'll agree that pornography isn't a good thing but equating it to alcohol or drug abuse is ridiculous
doctender77 2 years ago
Far from it. There is an ever-increasing body of scientific evidence that pornography addiction has the same effects on the brain as drug addiction. Dr. Hilton, a neurosurgeon and keynote speaker for this conference, will be addressing this very subject.
JasonTJenkins 2 years ago
what about addiction to sugar? or addiction to chocolate or video games? what of those similarities on the brain? Your group is only targeting pornography because it has specific moral objections to it, not because of any dangers of addiction. Keep your moral objections in your church, where they belong, and quit trying to pass these seminars off as science based when they are clearly faith based.
babble0n 2 years ago
Do you have kids? Do you let them eat sugar? Choclate? Do you let them play video games? I hope you don't let them watch porn. There is quite a difference. I'm willing to bet the point of the conference is educate how damaging porn is. I know how damaging it is first hand. I eat sugar, choclate; I play video games but they don't destroy my boundaries and change the way I view other people like porn did. I'm finally getting my life back in order and cannot believe the damage porn caused.
travusal 2 years ago
These same arguments could be applied to anything, which was my point. Just because you had an addiction to porn doesn't mean others will have the same. Your inability to control your damaging actions was the problem, not porn. Just like the obese child who cannot control the craving for sugar or chocolate or can't convince themselves to step away from the game controller, you could not pull yourself away from porn. That is not the fault of porn, but rather your weakness (not that you are weak).
babble0n 2 years ago
I see your argument better. However, I would like to point out that some things are both "addictive" and "harmful". Sugar and choclate are neither. Drugs are "adictive" and "harmful" they hurt your body and brain. Porn is "adictive" and "harmful" it changes your perception of boundaries, and women. You start to believe all women want sex all the time regardless marriage or other boundaries. You start to believe women flirting want sex. You see women as objects and treat them so etc...
travusal 2 years ago
I contend that sugar or chocolate addictions are indeed harmful, leading to sedentary lifestyle, weight gain, diabetes, heart disease etc. The subject of porn addiction is highly subjective. There is no standard diagnosis for porn addiction. What is addictive and controlling to you is simply visually stimulating to others. What you found to be destructive or controlling many millions of others see daily and have no problem with. Addictive substances don't behave that way. It's a morality issue.
babble0n 2 years ago
Sugar and choclate are not addictions. You satiate sooner or later. You may be able to lump them in with overeating but thats it. I agree that not everyone addicted is addicted to the same thing. I agree the problem is inside the person and they can get help. (I did.) However, addictive things are destructive to all wether they are addicted or not. Illegal drugs are destructive to all. Overeating is destructive. Porn is destructive. Ruins families and marriages. There is no satiation.
travusal 2 years ago
Sugar and chocolate are not addictions according to you; just because you get full doesn't mean you stop desiring them. The other things you list as destructive (both legal AND illegal drugs and porn) have millions of users that would disagree with you that they are destructive to all. There are millions of people who watch porn with no marital or familial problems and millions more who use drugs and live normal, productive lives. This group seeks to equate porn with meth or heroin, it's absurd.
babble0n 2 years ago
when you get full you stop. With porn, gambling, drugs, you never get "full". You overdose, look at porn until you get caught or fired or scared enough, lose all your money, eat so much you through up,etc. With choclate you eat too much get full and feel bad. Of course the users of destructive things would disagree. They are in denial just like I was. Everyone I know has marital and family problems without porn. Let alone with porn. They live normal lives on illegal drugs? denial.
travusal 2 years ago
Where is your evidence to support the millions who use illegal drugs and live normal productive lives? What is your definition of normal and productive? Not getting caught? This group seeks to point out the destructive nature of porn. It is destructive. There is evidence that the natural addictions, IE porn, pathological gambling, and overeating, damage the brain the same way meth does. There is actual, real, diversified, research showing this. This group just shows the research.
travusal 2 years ago
Again you equate use with addiction. this just isn't true. people drink alcohol, but that doesn't mean they are addicts. The same can be said with illegal (in the US) drugs. I should clarify marital problems as being directly related to porn viewing; Of course everyone has problems. Research means nothing without peer review in credible scientific journals. Until then it's just another hypothesis. This group only shows research that it deems family friendly. This is a reflection of its morals.
babble0n 2 years ago
The problem with the studies, research, etc. is that they all start with a forgone conclusion and then seek to prove it using technology. This is NOT science. Also, changes in the brain are not definitively damage. Everything we see and do changes our brain. My problem with this group and others like it is that they spout this stuff off as if it's a proven fact when it's clearly not. At the MOST it's debatable, but they never mention that or anything that is counter to their puritanical agenda.
babble0n 2 years ago
I certainly agree that not all people who use addictive things are not neccasarily addicted. I agree that is obvious. My point is that if someone is going to be addicted it is going to be to some thing "addictive". Furthermore I argue that porn, alcohol, illegal drugs etc are "addictive" hence the laws in place, age limits etc. Sugar and choclate are not "addictive", hence no laws regarding their use. Did you go to the conference? Did you see the research? You would have been impressed.
travusal 2 years ago
Again I'll say: If the evidence is so compelling and there is a causal relationship between viewing porn and brain 'damage,' then the 'researcher' should submit their findings for peer review in a credible scientific journal. Until then it is not impressive, it's an affront to free speech.
babble0n 2 years ago
Again I'll say: if you had went to the conference you would have seen many findings reported in scientific journals. Journal after journal. Diverse journals. Diverse research. It was impressive. I invite you to check it out if you really are interested.
travusal 2 years ago
Well, seeing how the show was put on across the state I'll have to settle for what google tells me. Right now it's telling me that the CfD website is down and there is no published research. Perhaps, since you appear knowledgeable you could link some of those science journals? Google isn't returning anything in favor of this argument for "porn causes brain damage." Well, nothing more than opinion anyway.
babble0n 2 years ago
I don't know what is on the website. The group brought in a specialist neurosurgeon who had compiled all the research. I went to the confernece in rexburg and a gentlemen filmed the conference professionally free of charge. I am willing to bet that video will come available and will have all the research. The research showed actual brain scans showing the damage and was explained by the doc mentioned above. It was very well documented and quite impressive. It is very new.
travusal 2 years ago
This is exactly my argument. There is no scientific backing of this hypothesis. Brain scans and online polls and one doctor's opinion of the scans does not equal factual backing of said hypothesis, yet it is presented as being scientifically proven just because they used a hi-tech device and had a Dr do the presentation. Neither the video nor the presentation equals peer review. The Dr's interpretations of the scans and research are designed to support his hypothesis, not question it.
babble0n 2 years ago
I invite you to check out the presentation. There were no online polls. It wasn't the docs opinion that was presented. The scans were part of the peer reviews being presented. The doc presented the peer reviews from the journals. It was nice to have a doc, who knows the brain like he does, explian the research that is out there. Not his research. He explained "the" research. Every single thing he showed had the journal article and names of those responsible for research. Check it out.
travusal 2 years ago
He did not present it as scientifically proven. He said from the very beginning that he invited any of us to see his compilation of research and judge for ourselves. It was presented as proof. Only as information. The research shown is just research not proof. Informational. But it was certainly compelling. They are certainly on to something. The conference was put on to give info not prove anything or push hidden agendas. Check it out. It's pretty cool.
travusal 2 years ago
(I meant it was NOT presented as proof.) Sorry.
travusal 2 years ago