Is Porn Poison for the Brain?

 

Does porn actually damage the brain? Might sound far-fetched, but there is some very interesting research on this topic that might convince you that it does. This week, I plan to post each day on a different topic related to my new book, Sex & God at Yale. Chapter 2, entitled “The Great Porn Debate,” details a rip-roaring Oxford-style porn debate starring porn performer Ron Jeremy, which was held in New Haven during my junior year.

Just this morning, a current Yale student sent me this fascinating TEDx video, featuring a talk by physiologist Gary Wilson, host of www.yourbrainonporn.com. According to the video description, Wilson’s research “arose in response to a growing demand for solid scientific information by heavy Internet erotica users experiencing perplexing, unexpected effects: escalation to more extreme material, concentration difficulties, sexual performance problems, radical changes in sexual tastes, social anxiety, irritability, inability to stop, and obsessive-compulsive symptoms.”

The video lasts about 15 min, but you can catch the main drift by watching only the first 5. Do so and I promise you’ll learn something:

Fascinating stuff, huh? Especially considering how extreme and how universal porn has become among youth in the internet age. It has shaped an entire generation already.

So what do you think? Is porn harmless, or is it poison for the brain?

Published in General
Like this post? Want to comment? Join Ricochet’s community of conservatives and be part of the conversation. Join Ricochet for Free.

There are 362 comments.

Become a member to join the conversation. Or sign in if you're already a member.
  1. Profile Photo Member
    @Sisyphus
    Crow’s Nest: And now to address something that did take place in the foregoing conversation, I completely agree with Mollie’s point re: libertarian vs. libertine.

    Just because I don’t want Tipper Gore and the Parent’s Music Research Center, or for that matter Focus on the Family or any such group, using the police power or setting up the National Bureau of Nannystatism doesn’t mean that I can’t call a spade a spade and condemn something that is debasing. · 3 hours ago

    Yes, people forget that European settlers came here in a great many cases so they could be moral people and found moral polities, rather than be the oppressed tools of immoral governments. 

    Happy Pearl Harbor Day!

    • #331
  2. Profile Photo Member
    @
    CoolHand

    dittoheadadt:I don’t see how any conclusions can be reached from the original clip and the text of the post that started this thread.

    But you don’t understand man.

    We can’t have a rational discussion here, literally tens of people are being effected!!!

    WE HAVE TO DOOOSOMETHING!!!1!!

    Resorting to mocking?  It really isn’t funny, and you just show yourself up as unserious and unable to properly engage the topic.

    • #332
  3. Profile Photo Member
    @
    dittoheadadt: I don’t see how any conclusions can be reached from the original clip and the text of the post that started this thread.

    I’m sorry you can’t draw any conclusions from it.  Your summary was pretty dismissive; it didn’t seem like you came at it with an open mind.

    There is plenty of other material that’s been referenced in this thread to back up what we and the OP are saying.

    Recent research has shown Internet porn is more addictive than many of the substances most people worry about.  It has not been studied much until recently; however, I’m convinced that further research will eventually leave the porn defenders in the dust, like the defenders of smoking who insisted for years that it didn’t really do any harm.

    I’m also still waiting for anything significant from the porn “defenders” about the abuses of women in the porn industry, and the moral dimension of consuming a “product” that causes this.

    Bottom line, porn attacks womanhood, reducing women to pieces of sexual meat, and it also undermines true manhood.  It undermines men’s self-control, honor, and ability to relate to women properly.

    • #333
  4. Profile Photo Inactive
    @dittoheadadt
    Crow’s Nest: Just because I don’t want Tipper Gore and the Parent’s Music Research Center, or for that matter Focus on the Family or any such group, using the police power or setting up the National Bureau of Nannystatism doesn’t mean that I can’t call a spade a spade and condemn something that is debasing. (emphasis added)

    Yes it does, if you don’t define “spade.” That’s the problem with the video – he paints with a broad brush, never defining the terms he uses, and then drawing conclusions, and also playing fast and loose with his “evidence.”  His “science” is no better and no more scientific than the “science” of AGW.

    Also, you certainly can condemn “something that is debasing.” Probably no one on this thread would disagree with you.  But that’s NOT the thesis or the premise behind this thread.

    Whether porn is brain poison IS the premise, not whether porn is debasing, or anything else.  And if the best 16-minute case that can be made for porn being brain poison is the attached video, then it’s no case at all.  Just lazy conjecture.

    • #334
  5. Profile Photo Inactive
    @dittoheadadt
    Chris Deleon

    dittoheadadt: I don’t see how any conclusions can be reached from the original clip and the text of the post that started this thread.

    I’m sorry you can’t draw any conclusions from it.  Your summary was pretty dismissive; it didn’t seem like you came at it with an open mind.

    I’m also still waiting for anything significant from the porn “defenders” about the abuses of women in the porn industry, and the moral dimension of consuming a “product” that causes this.

    Bottom line, porn attacks womanhood, reducing women to pieces of sexual meat, and it also undermines true manhood.  It undermines men’s self-control, honor, and ability to relate to women properly. · 1 minute ago

    Chris, I have no reason to doubt any of that, and I’m not defending porn or dismissing the abuse of women or the moral dimension.

    But the original thesis wasn’t any of that; it was whether heavy (undefined) porn (undefined) use is poison for the brain.  And the video, which I did view (4 times, btw) with an open mind, does not make a compelling case in the affirmative.  That’s my point.

    • #335
  6. Profile Photo Member
    @
    Fake John Galt: You are going to give Chris Deleon a stroke as he tries to keep up with everybody’s “red herrings” and “straw men”.

    Again, you can mock, but when people try to change the subject or introduce things irrelevant to the topic, it is a red herring.  And when people create a false representation of someone else’s position, and then proceed to knock it down, that is a straw man.  Both are weak debate techniques.

    By the way, I’m fine, and in no risk of suffering a stroke unless I go outside and overwork in the hot sun for several hours.

    • #336
  7. Profile Photo Member
    @
    dittoheadadt

    But theoriginal thesiswasn’t any of that; it was whether heavy (undefined) porn (undefined) use is poison for the brain.  And the video, which I did view (4 times, btw) with an open mind, does not make a compelling case in the affirmative.  That’s my point. · 3 minutes ago

    It’s a poor choice of words, which we’ve already discussed.  It’s not literally “poison” for your brain, but it hijacks your brain (damages it) in the same way as any other addiction.

    And the kind we’ve mostly been discussing, the most addictive form, is Internet video porn.  Perhaps the OP and video didn’t clearly define all terms, but a TED talk is supposed to be very concise, not exhaustive.

    Personally, I’m against any form of porn, and that has shown through in some of my comments, but the most concerning and addictive kind is the Internet video porn available in mass quantities for free to anyone with a high-speed connection.  The effects of Playboy are mild compared to that.

    • #337
  8. Profile Photo Inactive
    @dittoheadadt

    Here’s two reasons why I find the “science” and the premise behind the video suspect at best and unsupported conjecture at worst.

    First, his sample of 20 males. Totally unscientific sampling. Furthermore, he dismisses their self-assessments as delusional (by analogizing them to fish in water) without bothering to find out from their friends or family whether they might in fact be TRUE!  And without presenting any supporting scientific sampling.  That’s AGW-quality “science.”

    Second, his analogy to boys starting to smoke at 10 and the conclusion that “all” would get lung cancer, and that that would be perceived as normal.  He doesn’t for a moment consider some of the boys might smoke a pack a day, some a pack a week, some a pack a month, some only when they drink or play cards or go to a casino, and some of whom might actually quit smoking. No, in his world smoking (porn use) is all linear and all in one direction.  And then he draws conclusions with only one predetermined outcome.

    Almost his entire presentation is unscientific and speculative.  And yet we’re porn defenders if we don’t kneel at his altar of pseudoscience?

    • #338
  9. Profile Photo Inactive
    @dittoheadadt
    Chris Deleon

    dittoheadadt

    But theoriginal thesiswasn’t any of that; it was whether heavy (undefined) porn (undefined) use is poison for the brain.  And the video, which I did view (4 times, btw) with an open mind, does not make a compelling case in the affirmative.  That’s my point.

    It’s a poor choice of words, which we’ve already discussed.  It’s not literally “poison” for your brain, but it hijacks your brain…in the same way as any other addiction.

    Understood. I realize poison is a metaphor. But my objection was with the utter lack of precision with the use of “heavy” and “porn.”  I appreciate the additional resources you (and others) have provided. But the TED talk was offered as educational and fascinating, possibly convincing, with a promise of learning something, and porn was alleged to have impacted a generation, and yet the TED talk seems not to have buttressed those arguments at all.

    That’s what I’m arguing – that the video is dispositive of nothing, because the “science” behind it is lazy and anecdotal.  I’d ask “where’s the beef?” but I’m afraid I’d run afoul of Rico’s CoC.

    • #339
  10. Profile Photo Inactive
    @dittoheadadt
    Crow’s Nest: What one devotes one’s time and energy to has an impact. The presence or absence of various human pursuits in ones life has an impact. The things we expose ourselves to affect us, and arts of all kinds shape us. Culture matters.

    It is continually surprising the amount of energy that gets misdirected into justifying the opposite conclusion. · 8 hours ago

    That’s all straw man, Crow.  No one here has argued the opposite conclusions of what you wrote in the first paragraph I quoted.  In fact, they are so self-evident that I would bet you couldn’t find anyone on this thread who disagrees with them.

    As has been restated repeatedly, the original premise is whether “heavy Internet erotica use” damages the brain.  And the 16-minute video provided does not make that case.

    • #340
  11. Profile Photo Member
    @
    dittoheadadt

    …But the TED talk was offered as educational and fascinating, possibly convincing, with a promise of learning something, and porn was alleged to have impacted a generation, and yet the TED talk seems not to have buttressed those arguments at all.

    That’s what I’m arguing – that the videois dispositive of nothing, because the “science” behind it is lazy and anecdotal.  I’d ask “where’s the beef?” but am afraid I’d run afoul of Rico’s CoC.

    There’s no way you can fit all the details of the science into a 15-minute video.  It’s a summary, and covers the main points without necessarily giving all of the backing science or definitions.

    Granted, more studies still need to be done, especially controlled sociological studies.  However, the scientific evidence we have, and the growing understanding from the field of neurology about how addictions work, the fact that the scientific community is now realizing that all addictions work in essentially the same way, coupled with the clear evidence that Internet video porn juices our brains with more dopamine than almost anything else, is pretty strong evidence already.

    • #341
  12. Profile Photo Member
    @
    dittoheadadt

    Chris, I have no reason to doubt any of that, and I’m not defending porn or dismissing the abuse of women or the moral dimension.

    If that is the case, are you playing the devil’s advocate?  It generally comes across as though you are defending porn, even though you say you are simply challenging the content or conclusions of the original post.

    I’m personally advocating that people steer clear of porn in general because the soft stuff tends to lead to the harder, more depraved stuff.  As described already here, and in more detail the site at http://www.yourbrainonporn.com, the mechanisms in the brain by which this happens are well understood and backed up by neurological research.  Of course not everyone goes all the way down that path, but why start down that path at all?

    Regardless of the details from the video that you say are weak in this context, can we can agree that porn is generally something to be avoided and causes addiction in some cases (without necessarily committing to a particular percentage of cases unless further studies determine that)?

    • #342
  13. Profile Photo Inactive
    @dittoheadadt
    Chris Deleon

    dittoheadadt

    Chris, I have no reason to doubt any of that, and I’m not defending porn or dismissing the abuse of women or the moral dimension.

    If that is the case, are you playing the devil’s advocate?  It generally comes across as though you are defending porn, even though you say you are simply challenging the content or conclusions of the original post.

    Regardless of the details from the video that you say are weak in this context, can we can agree that porn is generally something to be avoided and causes addiction in some cases (without necessarily committing to a particular percentage of cases unless further studies determine that)?

    Edited 1 hour ago

    Not necessarily Devil’s Advocate, more a skeptic of the “science” presented in that video, and because of my own admittedly limited, anectodal experience. I will view the links you provided earlier before I have a discussion with my 21-yr-old son and perhaps they will be more compelling than the 16-minute video.  I just didn’t find the video to be persuasive or even very well argued or presented.

    (cont.)

    • #343
  14. Profile Photo Inactive
    @CoolHand
    dittoheadadt:I don’t see how any conclusions can be reached from the original clip and the text of the post that started this thread.

    But you don’t understand man.

    serious_cat.jpg

    We can’t have a rational discussion here, literally tens of people are being effected!!!

    WE HAVE TO DOOO SOMETHING!!!1!!

    • #344
  15. Profile Photo Inactive
    @dittoheadadt

    As for the 2nd paragraph of yours that I quoted, Chris, yes, absolutely, I agree that porn (however defined…except not including the SI Swimsuit issue…) is generally something to be avoided.  If it’s reasonably proved to be destructively addictive to the general male population, then a thousand yesses.

    But even if it has NO addictive properties, I think it’s to be avoided because it’s offensive to the women in our lives, it has little if any redeeming value, it’s largely a waste of time, it’s morally questionable, in many cases it’s probably exploitative of and demeaning to the women involved, even if they putatively consent to it, ad infinitum.

    But that’s a value judgment, a personal judgment, which is a whole ‘nother issue, totally different from the one proposed at the outset of this thread.  I’ve not been addressing the value judgments involved, only the contention, as supported by the provided video, that science says porn is poison for the brain.  I have my doubts about that.  But I don’t doubt for a moment that it’s poison for the soul.

    • #345
  16. Profile Photo Inactive
    @CrowsNest

    To jump in 300 posts in and completely ignore the foregoing conversation, while the video is interesting and the brain science intriguing, I suppose I am just not terribly surprised.

    Neither am I surprised to learn that those who read broadly and often tend to have a better vocabulary, or that those who listen to classical music regularly have a longer attention span.

    What one devotes one’s time and energy to has an impact. The presence or absence of various human pursuits in ones life has an impact. The things we expose ourselves to affect us, and arts of all kinds shape us. Culture matters.

    It is continually surprising the amount of energy that gets misdirected into justifying the opposite conclusion.

    • #346
  17. Profile Photo Inactive
    @CrowsNest

    And now to address something that did take place in the foregoing conversation, I completely agree with Mollie’s point re: libertarian vs. libertine.

    Just because I don’t want Tipper Gore and the Parent’s Music Research Center, or for that matter Focus on the Family or any such group, using the police power or setting up the National Bureau of Nannystatism doesn’t mean that I can’t call a spade a spade and condemn something that is debasing.

    • #347
  18. Profile Photo Inactive
    @CoolHand
    Chris Deleon

    Resorting to mocking?  It really isn’t funny, and you just show yourself up as unserious and unable to properly engage the topic.

    OK, you know what?

    I came, I engaged, and I got insulted for my trouble.  So, I came back and made a funny post to lighten the mood, and I got insulted again.

    Now, the gloves are off.  I’ve had a thought for some time now, since you’ve been on a real bender in this thread, but I held my tongue out of politeness.

    No more.

    You speak about porn addiction as if everyone is as susceptible as you are, but this is not the case.

    YOU might have a weakness for it, and that’s bad for you, but you cannot extrapolate your experience out onto the other 300 million of us in this nation.

    You’re behaving in exactly the same manner as the alcoholic who manages to stop drinking and then instantly becomes an advocate for banning alcohol (again) because it is so evil and people are helpless against it.

    Continued . . .

    • #348
  19. Profile Photo Inactive
    @CoolHand

    What you are really saying, is that YOU are helpless against it, and that you need a bigger support network to stop you from going back to the bad old days.

    Guess what.  We’re not all alike.  Booze does not effect us all the same way.  Drugs do not effect us all the same way.  It’s a pretty safe bet that porno doesn’t effect us all the same way either.

    How do you square the circle you’re drawing here?  As a conservative you believe that people are individuals, not some mass of numbers that are more or less identical and interchangeable.  But then, in this thread, you are arguing that porno causes terrible problems for everyone who sees it regardless of situation or constitution (IE everyone is identical and interchangeable).

    Continued . . .

    • #349
  20. Profile Photo Inactive
    @CoolHand

    For me, it boils down to this (and this is the last I’m going to say on the issue, because the half dozen rabid anti-porno wombats in this thread will have eaten me alive):

    Who is in charge of my life?  Me?  Or you?

    If the answer is ME, then be quiet and go away.  Porno is basically the last thing I am ever going to worry about, it just doesn’t matter to me that much.  Midget porno?  Different question, which I won’t go into here. (Heh)

    If you think that the answer is YOU, then we have a much bigger problem than porno, and fisticuffs very well may ensue.

    In your life, you may dislike porno as much as you wish, but I know how this song goes, as I have heard the tune many times before.

    You want to affect a change on society (eliminate porno), but only using persuasion.  Then, when persuasion fails (as it will, because a lot of people like porno), you have but two choices: 1) give up  2) turn to coercion (governmental or otherwise).

    True believers such as yourself NEVER choose option one.

    • #350
  21. Profile Photo Member
    @
    CoolHand

    I came, I engaged, and I got insulted for my trouble.  So, I came back and made a funny post to lighten the mood, and I got insulted again.

    Live by the insult, die by the insult.

    Your post was clearly mocking and insulting in tone, not funny or conducive to lightening the mood.  My response pointed out that it’s hard to engage with someone who just mocks your position.

    • #351
  22. Profile Photo Member
    @

    Have you forgotten this?

    Mel Foil

    CoolHand: Not unrelated is another point:

    This sort crap is why those of us on the libertarian side of the fold are very leery of the hard core so-con side.

    As soon as it looks like we might win, they come out of the woodwork to demand govt change people’s behavior using the law……..

    The guy in the video is doing nothing to involve government. He’s just pointing out that if you weigh 500 lbs, you may want to stop buying cheesecake by the case. He’s not saying you need the government to get involved. If you understand that there are evolutionary reasons why you binge on cheesecake, it might be easier to control what you do. Start buying carrots instead.

    Or this?

    Rocket City Dave: One libertarian tick that I find annoying is when they equate moral disgust with calls for government regulation.

    I don’t like it when people fart on the bus. I’m not calling for the government to regulate it.

    Drug use along with pornography are potentially dangerous and corrupting. That doesn’t mean government has any role in protecting people from themselves.

    • #352
  23. Profile Photo Inactive
    @CoolHand
    Chris Deleon

    Live by the insult, die by the insult. · 0 minutes ago

    True enough.

    [Ed.’s note: this comment has been redacted. ]

    • #353
  24. Profile Photo Inactive
    @CoolHand
    Chris Deleon: Have you forgotten this?

    Rocket City Dave: One libertarian tick that I find annoying is when they equate moral disgust with calls for government regulation.

    I don’t like it when people fart on the bus. I’m not calling for the government to regulate it.

    Drug use along with pornography are potentially dangerous and corrupting. That doesn’t mean government has any role in protecting people from themselves.

    Ever notice how Democrats always talk about free and fair elections, but what they do in reality is lie and cheat and try to steal as many elections as they can?

    It’s the same thing with your So-Cons and issues like this.

    You talk about persuasion and changing the culture, but when the rubber hits the road, you always opt for some of that sweet sweet governmental coercion.

    History is on my side with this one pal.  You may attempt to plead “But I’m different!”, if you like, but I’m am very unlikely to believe you.

    • #354
  25. Profile Photo Member
    @

    And another:

    Tom Meyer: I’d like to remind everyone that…no one has argued for government bans or intervention.

    You can claim to know where this is going, but your position basically implies that we are unable to even raise concerns about an issue without you shouting at us: “Statists!”  “You want government to run our lives!”

    • #355
  26. Profile Photo Member
    @
    CoolHand

    Chris Deleon

    Live by the insult, die by the insult. · 0 minutes ago

    True enough.

    [Comment redacted]

    I’m old enough to take that in stride, but I’m not sure it bolsters your position.

    • #356
  27. Profile Photo Inactive
    @dittoheadadt
    Chris Deleon

    dittoheadadt

    Chris, I have no reason to doubt any of that, and I’m not defending porn or dismissing the abuse of women or the moral dimension.

    If that is the case, are you playing the devil’s advocate?  It generally comes across as though you are defending porn, even though you say you are simply challenging the content or conclusions of the original post.

    One other point needs to be made regarding the canard that being skeptical of the science is somehow the same as defending porn.  I quoted you, Chris, only because it was convenient, but I think the illogical sentiment is shared by many who’ve posted on this thread.

    Being skeptical of the “porn is addictive” science is no more a defense of porn than being skeptical of “global warming” science is a defense of wanting the earth to get warmer.  I can dispute the science of both without being an advocate of either.

    • #357
  28. Profile Photo Member
    @

    Of course, being skeptical of one argument on an issue does not require you to be on the other side of the issue.  Sorry for the misunderstanding.

    It might help to specify your actual position up front.

    • #358
  29. Profile Photo Inactive
    @dittoheadadt

    Except that my actual position regarding porn itself wasn’t on trial.  Nor was anyone’s position on porn, per se.  What was on trial, so to speak, was the contention that heavy internet porn use actually physically damages the human brain.  The opening post even said that the 16-minute video was so compelling that one only had to watch the first 5 minutes to catch the main drift.

    My position on porn is wholly irrelevant to that issue, and is immaterial to my argument about the speciousness of the science cited in the 16-minute video, much of which I was able to (I think) discredit or cast serious doubt about in my point-by-point rebuttal posts.

    If disputing the science of “porn damages the brain by physically changing it” is tantamount to a defense of porn, then by that logic it’s also tantamount to arguing that the brain is physically unchangeable.  Both positions are non sequiturs, and I argued neither one.

    Porn is such a highly-charged topic that I think sometimes the weight of people’s moral objections and/or personal experiences cause debates to jump the tracks from reason to emotion.

    • #359
  30. Profile Photo Member
    @
    dittoheadadt: Whatwas on trial, so to speak, was the contention that heavy internet porn use actually physically damages the human brain.

    A basic understanding of addiction, neurology, etc. reveal that a) actual physical and chemical brain changes occur from addictions in general, and b) addiction to Internet porn is more likely than with many other behavioral addictions and things that people prefer to call “compulsions” (what is an addiction if not that?).

    Don’t take this personally, but most of your critiques of the video seemed more like nitpicking on the details of a brief presentation than anything that casts doubt on the basic science.  I agree that certain rhetorical devices he uses are not “scientific,” but they are used to convey an understanding or make a point.  Remember, it’s a presentation giving a summary of the topic, not an exhaustive deep dive into the science behind it.  For that, there is the site yourbrainonporn.com and the other links to studies that have been posted in the thread.

    If you challenge the idea that Internet porn can be highly addictive, or think our understanding of its mechanisms is suspect, address where you think it is weak.

    • #360
Become a member to join the conversation. Or sign in if you're already a member.