David Ley Attacks NoFap and Porn-Recovery - Don't let the "porn addiction" deniers discourage you

Discussion in 'Rebooting' started by Alexander, May 28, 2015.

  1. Alexander

    Alexander Fapstronaut
    Staff Member Founder

    1,204
    2,293
    143
    This was recently sent out to subscribers of the NoFap Academy weekly newsletter that Mark Queppet and myself operate (sign up here, if you want).

    But I made the decision that it NEEDS to be cross-posted here.

    --------------------

    Greetings, Fapstronauts:

    This week we are passing the keyboard over to a very special guest, Gary Wilson from Your Brain on Porn. Gary will be addressing some of the "porn addiction doesn't exist" articles that have been popping up on a few websites.

    We believe that conflicting information might cause some rebooters to second-guess their decisions to leave porn in the past, so it is best to take care of this issue head-on before misinformation ends up harming even more people.

    From Gary Wilson (the creator of Your Brain On Porn):
    David Ley's blog post The NoFap Phenomenon is packed full of straw men, mischaracterizations and lies. Note that Ley's post contains no references to back his claims. Also note that Ley closed comments, which is very unusual for Psychology Today blog posts. In essence, Ley's post borders on libel with no support for his allegations or claims.

    Ley is the author of The Myth of Sex Addiction. He has written 20 or so blog posts attacking and dismissing NoFap, porn addiction and porn-induced ED. He states that porn use is harmless and if someone develops problems it's because they had "other issues". TV shows, magazines, websites too often turn to Ley as an "authority" on porn addiction and porn's effects because the medical researchers - who would give an accurate picture of the state of internet addiction research - generally aren't focused on internet porn specifically. Nor are they as readily available as eager Dr. Ley. He therefore gets to shape the debate in the media despite his utter lack of education in the neuroscience of addiction and sexual conditioning.

    As stated, David Ley has a history of attacking NoFap, Pornfree, RebootNation, etc. in blog posts and on Twitter. While the vitriol of his rhetoric has increased, he no longer allows rebuttal. Ley closes comments on all porn-related blog posts. He has done so because comments on hispost calling porn-induced ED a myth didn't go his way. Specifically, the following comments under that post, by two experts who took him to task, led to his eventual ban on commenting.

    Ask yourself: How ethical is it for a psychologist to attack self-help groups such as Nofap? If he has a problem with the concept of internet porn addiction, shouldn't he attack the scientists who are doing the research rather than people who are struggling to recover? What would you think of a "scientist" who didn't believe in cancer, but instead of going after oncologists, went after cancer patients struggling to regain their health?

    And how ethical is it to mischaracterize and libel these groups quitting porn and sharing their experiences - yet allow them no recourse because you closed comments? I could go line-by-line through Ley's post, but here are a few examples of unsupported claims from his post attacking Nofap:

    "An interesting note is that no one in the r/NoFap movement is actually a scientist who does research on neurophysiology and function."

    Ley is claiming to know the occupations of all 150,000+ members of NoFap. Really? Actually, NoFap includes neuroscientists, psychologists, and several MD's who identify as such. Here are a few MD's who recovered (PIED). Here's a young psychiatrist, who had PIED, whom I interviewed on my radio show. Ley thinks nothing of making up crap that fits his prejudices on this subject:

    "Instead, they are enthusiastic amateurs, who've learned enough about brain science to be dangerous, as they see what they expect to see, and interpret brain science to support their assumptions."

    Of course he gives no examples, no citations, just vague accusations. It must be noted that Ley has absolutely no background in neurobiology. This is the same claim made in many of Ley's other porn-related posts. But what is the reality?

    Reality
    First, there are only 4 brain studies published on porn users, and all 4 report the same brain changes as seen in other addictions. See this page: Brain Studies on Porn Users. These are not "enthusiastic amateurs" or "just YBOP" saying porn causes addiction-related brain changes. (That is what Ley tells journalists who contact him.) Top neuroscientists at Cambridge University and Germany's Max Planck Institute are saying porn use alters the brain.

    Again, that's four for four. These four brain studies must be considered in a larger context as well. In the last few years over 100 internet addiction brain studies have arrived, all showing the same fundamental brain changes as seen in drug addiction. Many include porn users, and all point to the ability of internet-based stimuli to cause pathological learning (in this case, addiction).

    The internet addiction studies must be considered in the context of decades of addiction neuroscience, which informs us that all addictions share the same fundamental brain changes and mechanisms. In line with the preponderance of evidence, The American Society of Addiction Medicine published a "new definition of addiction" in 2011. ASAM stated that behavioral addictions exist, including sexual behavior addictions, and they are as real as drug addictions.

    ASAM's 3000 medical doctors are the real addiction experts, not Ley or other vocal sexologists who claim that internet porn has no more impact on the human brain than stick figures on cave walls. ASAM's members include many of the world's top addiction neuroscientists. Read Ley's blog posts carefully. He does not cite a single addiction neuroscientist. What "science" does Ley use to back his claims? Mainly the research papers he and his sidekick Nicole Prause produce, rubber-stamped by their sexology cronies. These papers would simply not pass peer-review by addiction neuroscience experts.

    Where's Ley's evidence?
    Surprisingly, most of Ley's "science" relies on only two people, himself & Nicole Prause, and these two papers:

    • First paper: "Sexual desire, not hypersexuality, is related to neurophysiological responses elicited by sexual images" (2013). Nicole Prause was the main author
    • Second paper: "The Emperor Has No Clothes: A review of the 'Pornography Addiction' model" (2014). David Ley & Nicole Prause were the main authors.
    Ley & Prause not only teamed up to write paper #2, but they also teamed up to write a Psychology Today blog post about paper #1. The blog post showed up 5 months before Prause's paper was formally published (so no one could refute it). You may have seen Ley's blog post with the oh-so-catchy title: Your Brain on Porn - It's NOT Addictive. Put simply, most of the noise emanates from two people who teamed up to write and publicize two papers. Neither paper is what it claims to be, nor what the headlines imply.

    First paper - The Prause EEG study
    The 4th study listed on Brain Studies on Porn Users is actually the Nicole Prause's EEG study (the first of the two papers just discussed). While Prause made several unfounded, contrary claims in her press interviews about it, her study actually reported higher EEG readings when porn users were exposed to cues. This is exactly what occurs when addicts are exposed to cues related to their addiction. Thus, Prause's results found evidence consistent with porn addiction - even as she claimed the opposite.

    Please read this Psychology Today Prause interview about her EEG study. Then read the 2 comments under the interview of Prause by Psychology professor John A. Johnson:

    My mind still boggles at the Prause claim that her subjects' brains did not respond to sexual images like drug addicts' brains respond to their drug, given that she reports higher P300 readings for the sexual images. Just like addicts who show P300 spikes when presented with their drug of choice. How could she draw a conclusion that is the opposite of the actual results? I think it could be due to her preconceptions--what she expected to find.

    Then read this comment - John Johnson continues.

    You can also read these two peer-reviewed analyses of Prause's EEG study. Both support Johnson's claims that Prause's study actually aligns with the "addiction model" (that she and Ley irresponsibly disparage).

    1. ‘High desire’, or ‘merely’ an addiction? A response to Steele et al.
    2. The first Cambridge study - Note that 11 addiction neuroscientists discuss Prause's EEG study starting with this sentence: "Our findings suggest dACC activity reflects the role of sexual desire, which may have similarities to a study on the P300 in CSB subjects correlating with desire [25]." In other words, they were politely telling Prause that she didn't undertsand her own results, which were consistent with an addiction finding.
    You can also read this full critique, documenting what the Prause EEG study really found, and how the claims in the press do not align with the actual findings. I suggest reading the short version.

    Second paper - The Ley & Prause "review"
    The second paper is not a study at all. Instead, it claims to be a "review of the literature" on porn addiction and porn's effects. Nothing could be farther from the truth. The following is a very long analysis, which goes line-by-line, showing all the shenanigans Ley & Prause pulled - The Emperor Has No Clothes: A Fractured Fairytale Posing As A Review It completely dismantles the so-called review, and documents dozens of misrepresentations of the research they cited.

    The most shocking aspect of the Ley review is that it omitted ALL the studies that found negative effects/evidence of porn use. Yes, you read that right. While purporting to write an "objective" review, these two sexologists justified omitting these studies on the grounds that these were correlational studies. Guess what? All studies on porn are correlational. There are, and pretty much will be, only correlational studies, because researchers have no way to find "porn virgins" or keep subjects off of porn for extended periods in order compare effects. (Thousands of guys are quitting porn voluntarilyon various forums, however, and their results suggest that internet porn is the key variable in their symptoms and recoveries.)

    A few examples of what Ley & Prause pulled:

    • As stated, they did not allow any studies showing ill effects from porn use on the grounds that they are "merely" correlational, and then proceeded to cite as support for their pet theories various correlational studies.
    • They cherry-picked random, misleading lines from within studies, failing to report the researchers' actual opposing conclusions.
    • They cited as support numerous studies that are entirely irrelevant to the text and the claims made.
    • They defended their dismissal of behavioral addiction on the basis of studies that are as much as 25 years old, ignoring recent, far more numerous, contradictory studies/reviews that reflect the current consensus of addiction experts.
    • They did not acknowledge (or analyze) dozens of brain studies on internet addicts.
    • They ignored the two publicized brain-scan studies performed on porn users at Cambridge University and Max Planck, which dismantle the Ley/Prause conclusions.
    Incidentally, their pro-porn editors Michael Perelman, Charles Moser and Peggy Kleinplatz resuscitated a defunct sexology journal called Current Sexual Health Reports (which hadn't published in many years) in order to foist this "review" on the unsuspecting public! I suspect Ley made history: this may be the first time ever that a literature review was authored by someone who 1) has never published before 2) has no expertise in the field (addiction).

    Bottom line: When you see a link to an article that says porn addiction has been dismantled, follow the source. I can almost guarantee you will discover one of these 2 easily refutable, and irresponsible papers behind the claims.

    What about Porn-Induced ED?
    Ley & Prause claim PIED is a myth. More propaganda. First, this page links to about 55 experts, including 5 urology professors, who recognize and treat PIED - Porn-Induced ED in the Media: Experts who recognize PIED

    Second, all the recent studies on sexual function in young men have found unbelievably high rates of ED and low sexual desire: ED rates from 27% - 33%; low sexual desire from 24 -37% (so far). See: Research confirms enormous rise in youthful ED.

    The only major ED study on American men was done just before the internet became widely available. It reported a 5% rate of ED in men ages 18-59. This was based on data from 1992, and note that one third of the men were over 40. (Historically older men reported the highest rates of ED.)

    Until one can explain an 800% jump in sexual problems in the last 15 yearsin young men, it's wise to assume that the above experts may be right about PIED, and that sexologists with an agenda are likely untrustworthy.

    Then we have the Cambridge study, which reported Porn-Induced ED in 60% of the porn addicts they scanned. From the study:

    "[porn addicts] compared to healthy volunteers had significantly more difficulty with sexual arousal and experienced more erectile difficulties in intimate sexual relationships but not to sexually explicit material.”

    Finally, we have the Max Planck study on porn users which found that the more porn consumed the less activity in their brains' reward centers when exposed to sexual images. From the study:

    "This is in line with the hypothesis that intense exposure to pornographic stimuli results in a downregulation of the natural neural response to sexual stimuli."

    Lead author Simone Kühn told journalists – “That could mean that regular consumption of pornography more or less wears out your reward system.”And That would fit perfectly the hypothesis that their reward systems need growing stimulation.

    -Gary Wilson

    ----------

    Thank you very much, Gary Wilson, for writing up all of this much-needed information. You are a hero, providing some clarity to the science of porn addiction in this world of conflicting information. Your work has saved countless lives around the world, and we couldn't be more thankful for that.
     
    mshms, adam1992, EdwardL and 19 others like this.
  2. Kurapika

    Kurapika Guest

    I have read David Ley's posts before.
    To anyone used to research and concrete scientific evidence , he is just posting shit.
    He disabled the comments because he was embarrassed many times by Gary Wilson himself and others.
     
    EdwardL, Haggis, Mr.NoFapster and 4 others like this.
  3. matthewmammothrept

    matthewmammothrept Der Rebütermensch
    Staff Member

    2,098
    2,685
    143
    I put Dr. Ley in the same category as the Climate Change deniers and those anti-vaccination doctors.
     
  4. persist1

    persist1 Fapstronaut

    90
    17
    8
    Great Read! Thank you for posting this!
     
  5. jatar

    jatar Fapstronaut

    503
    119
    43
    That's an interesting situation. On one hand, it's difficult to dispute an opinion of a a person with professional knowledge on the topic (I assume, I haven't checked his credentials that extensively) and on the other there are a few issues with the article and the author himself that I cannot looks past:

    1. The article bases its criticism of NoFap around the thesis that NoFap propagates dangerous ideas. The author writes:

    It's easy to miss the fact that he doesn't present any examples of the supposed dangers NoFap can cause. What I can't see is explanation of how exactly in his opinion NoFap and its ideas are dangerous. If he can't see any concrete danger of NoFap, and he certainly doesn't list any in this article, then why is he arguing against NoFap?

    To emphasize my point, in another part of the article the author writes:

    OK, so we know about the anti-vaccine crisis and its dangers, you can easily look it up on the internet. But what are the "less critical results" of NoFap? They are less critical, okay, but what are they exactly? The author gives no answers to that question at any point in the article. There is no explanation as to what he wants to save us from by opposing NoFap.

    2. The part quoted above and a few other parts of the article talk about the "intrusion of moral values" into the ideas of NoFap. The author must've been reading a different site than the one I see every day. In my experience the community here is more focused on the studies we share, data and anecdotal evidence than moral reasons for of abstinence. It feels like the author read NoFap selectively, seeing only those parts that fit his thesis, or just skimmed through and drew his conclusion from that. In any case, I think it's indicative of sloppy research.

    3. The article reads more like an opinion piece than anything. Also, I think it's worth noting that "Psychology Today" is not a scientific journal but a popular magazine that aims to make psychology more accessible to the general public. It's a consumer magazine, not even a professional publication.

    4. I may be wrong, but I don't think psychologists are experts in neurology and brain science. His bio on "Psychology Today" website doesn't mention his expertise in those fields. If that is the case, and he is not qualified in those areas, then how can the author so categorically state that NoFap is wrong in its understanding of brain science? Wouldn't that be a case of word of one non-expert against word of another?

    5. When you check his bio on the site it says:

    OK, so he wrote a book saying that there's no sex addiction and it's "controversial", meaning that many people don't agree with it. This alone says a lot about how his article should not be treated as a summary of the researchers' position on the benefits and dangers of NoFap, but rather a personal opinion of the author.
     
    Haggis likes this.
  6. kamado86

    kamado86 Fapstronaut

    320
    51
    28
    Do you know what I think is scary. I genuinely have become sexually exhausted. I have brain function problems from too much MOIng as well but I literally have mucked up my system from masturbating every day for ten years.

    Every time I now masturbate the next day I feel completely drained. Ok I may have other some underlying thyroid or hormonal issue but at the end of the day no doctor has picked it up.

    From all of the reading I have done nofap and the like make so much sense. It is common sense. If you are MOIng everyday you are going to become depleted as it's not meant to happen everyday.

    I'm not saying I have cast iron proof nofap is scientifically correct but just from living I know it is helping me recover.
     
    Kyle8884 likes this.
  7. matthewmammothrept

    matthewmammothrept Der Rebütermensch
    Staff Member

    2,098
    2,685
    143
    re @jatar- there is a moral argument to NoFap, of course, but I don't think it is the one Ley is thinking about. The argument is that, as Gail Dines says, pornography creates a perpetrating culture, supports the worst forms of misogeny, encourages rape and sexual violence, and turns men into sexual predators. This moral element is completely missing from Ley's summary of the reboot movement. It's clear, as you said, that he really knows little to nothing about us. His whole summary of the rebooting movement is one large straw man.

    Thank you for your wonderful reply, jatar.
     
    Kyle8884 and Sign of the Times like this.
  8. himmelstoss

    himmelstoss Fapstronaut

    969
    417
    63
  9. galaxim

    galaxim Fapstronaut

    955
    832
    93
    Great article! Thank you for sharing it!
    I joined NoFap at the beginning of 2014 and I remember telling Alexander two things:
    1. The NoFap/reboot movement was going to grow more and more everyday.
    2. NoFap was going to start experiencing more and more attacks by porn supporters.

    I think in the end it's not going to matter that we have science on our side. As mumchance said "I put Dr. Ley in the same category as the Climate Change deniers and those anti-vaccination doctors". There are people who are just going to hate us for what we do and for who we are.
     
    Kurapika 2, Kyle8884, Gilbert and 4 others like this.
  10. Haggis

    Haggis Fapstronaut

    485
    597
    93
    Mr Ley (he doesn't seem worthy of the "DR" prefix to me) is in this for the money. He's a sensationalist, and is aiming for the lowest common denominator, nothing else.

    The titles of his "books" sound more like cheesy dime store romance novels than respectable literature from a learned individual.
     
    matthewmammothrept likes this.
  11. Alexander

    Alexander Fapstronaut
    Staff Member Founder

    1,204
    2,293
    143
    From our about page:

    NoFap is not a movement. It’s just a website. Some have mistaken NoFap as a “movement,” but participants in a movement rally behind a common political, social, or moral ideal. The fact is NoFap’s users come here to improve themselves, not to improve the whole world. Far from being a single-minded movement, our users are a diverse group who find common ground in only one thing—they believe abstaining from individually-elected sexual behaviors for a period of time will improve their lives. Get any more specific than that, and you’ll find there aren’t many things our users can agree on! Users set their own reboot goals. NoFap is here to help them succeed. Additionally, NoFap is only one of many websites in the porn-recovery industry, dubbing us our own movement would be a disservice to them.

    NoFap is not an anti-masturbation website. A clear majority of NoFap’s users and administrators alike agree that there’s nothing inherently wrong with masturbation. A small number of users may believe otherwise, perhaps due to their moral principles, but find NoFap’s broad-minded approach works better for them than the moralistic focus of “chastity” websites that dot the Internet. NoFap does not encourage lifelong abstinence from masturbation or sexual behavior. Rather, we encourage our users to abstain for a period of time for the duration of their reboots—typically around ninety days. While some abstain for longer periods of time—even for life—most of our users then return to masturbation having freed themselves of the need to use pornography. Our users choose what is healthiest for them and best serves their goals.

    NoFap is not a sex-negative website. In fact, we believe that quitting porn is one of the most sex-positive choices a person can make. NoFap doesn’t argue that individuals should abstain from sex or masturbation altogether for the rest of their lives, nor do we argue that individuals should “save themselves for marriage.” We might recommend that our users abstain from sex for the limited duration of their reboot. However, we ultimately want people to enjoy sex! We argue that heavy porn use makes real sex less enjoyable by desensitizing the brain’s reward system, which has consequences on sexual performance and intimacy. Most users return to sex soon after their reboots only to report vastly improved sex lives.

    NoFap does not support legislation to restrict the creation or consumption of pornography. In an interview with Maclean’s Magazine, NoFap’s founder Alexander Rhodes described himself as “‘an Internet-freedom zealot’ who thinks the dangerous effects of porn are best dealt with in sex-ed class and not through government regulation.” NoFap believes that the solution to porn addiction comes from education rather than legislation. We believe in an individual’s right to make his or her own decisions. We empower those individuals who choose to quit porn with the resources they need to follow through on that choice.

    Reserving this post to insert more information in response to these articles.

    To those responding:
    To those responding to Dr. Ley either here, on Twitter, his website, etc, I would just like to encourage you to stay professional and on-topic. Discuss the person's arguments, not the person.
     
    Last edited: May 30, 2015
    Kurapika 2, Kyle8884, perusan and 6 others like this.
  12. JustADude

    JustADude Fapstronaut

    334
    305
    63
    @alexander, thanks for the reminder :). It would be too easy to turn your wonderful creation into something it was not intended to be and have the website lose its focus on healing those damaged by PMO.
     
  13. matthewmammothrept

    matthewmammothrept Der Rebütermensch
    Staff Member

    2,098
    2,685
    143
  14. JustADude

    JustADude Fapstronaut

    334
    305
    63
    I just read Dr. Chris Donaghue's, Dr. Lay's cohort, blog post to understand his viewpoint. The problem with a lot of these differing views is that they mostly speak in terms of absolutes. For example, I pulled this line from Dr. Lay's blog...

    "The “sex addict” is a “healthy” “self” attempting to find balance and relief and return to a “natural” and functional homeostasis. The “sex addict” is a symptom of our sex negative and phobic culture. Overregulated, over contained, and over shamed. Watch five hours of a baseball game and you are healthy, five hours of porn and you are an “addict”."

    I read that and thought a couple of things...
    1. I am sure there are plenty of purported "sex addicts" that are not really sex addicts as the blog suggests. But, the idea that sex addiction is always healthy is speaking in absolutes. The author's absolute assertion is far fetched and my guess is, the author intentionally sensationalizes his words in an attempt to drum up controversy.
    2. If you watch 5 hours of a baseball game and those 5 hours cause you to be late bringing your kid to school, then, I would suggest you might have a problem. If you do that once a weak, I would suggest you might have a big problem. If you try to stop watching baseball so that you can get your kid to school on time and you fail time and time again, you might have a huge problem. I have found myself using more than 5 hours of porn multiple times a week, the porn watching has caused me to be late to work at least once a week, late to dropping my kids off for school, too tired to function properly throughout the day. Every time I have tried to cut back so that I can meet my basic obligations as an employee/father/husband, I have failed. Maybe I am not clinically considered a "sex addict", but, I definitely have a problem with sex interfering with my ability to take care of my daily obligations. I am old enough and mature enough these days to not really give a crap about what society thinks.

    If Dr. Ley and his cohort would take the time to thoughtfully poor over a significant amount of noFap poster comments, they will invariably find the whole gamut of posters. Some posters only have problems dealing with the socially unacceptable facet of their sex lives. Some posters have ED that has gone away once they abstained from porn. Others (like me) have serious issues keeping PMO from affecting basic aspects of their lives. Some posters are dealing with a lot of conservative religious baggage, other are not. If they do diligent analysis of the noFap community, I would hope they change their tone. If they choose not to change their tone, I can only assume they have unethical motivations behind their efforts to promote their message.

    Additionally, for people with a serious addiction to PMO, like me, it doesn't really matter what those doctors think. People like me, other fellow fapstronauts, know we have a problem and we sought out noFap because we need help solving our problem. It is quite humorous to hear professionals try to tell me and others like me that I don't have a problem with PMO.
     
    Last edited: May 30, 2015
  15. matthewmammothrept

    matthewmammothrept Der Rebütermensch
    Staff Member

    2,098
    2,685
    143
    Granted we are very passionate about our cause. But characterizing us as zealots sounds harsh. That's makes us sound like we are fundamentalist Islamists or Christians. We aren't. We have no ideological agenda. We are many different different religions, world views and ideologies. Some reboot for religious reasons. Some do it for human rights reasons. Most of us do it for personal reasons, because pornography has become a bad influence on our lives. But NoFap has no overarching ideological or political goal. We are simply trying to improve people's lives. Whether our “cries” end up being hyperbolic (a fancy word for exaggerated or not), depend on the strength of Dr. Ley's argument.

    Another point here... the last sentence borders on ad hominem. By characterizing us as naïve and simplistic, Dr. Ley simply dismisses our argument as inconsequential. Well, if Dr. Ley believes our arguments are fallacious, he needs to prove it.


    Genetic fallacy. It it does not follow that since Tissot, Rush and Kellog had unsupported ideas about masturbation that all there ideas about masturbation where incorrect. Anecdotal evidence suggests that they may have been right about some negative effects of masturbation, especially brain fog and lack of motivation.

    By characterizing us as similar to these 18th century moralists, Dr. Ley is committing a huge straw man fallacy. NoFap is not anti-masturbation. Many rebooters on NoFap do give up masturbation and believe it is harmful to the health, but many others see nothing wrong with masturbation at all. People who do not think masturbation is inherently wrong or harmful give it up for a time to let their minds reboot. So NoFap's stance against masturbation is procedural, not absolute. It is harmful during a reboot, but can be part of a healthy sex life once the individual has fully rebooted. It seems strange that Dr. Ley invests so much energy connecting us to Kellog and his like when the bulk of our arguments are about the effects of pornography, and not masturbation.


    I'd like a citation for this.


    Again genetic fallacy: Kellog and them weren't necessarily wrong about some of what they said. Also appeal to popularity: because the majority of people have discarded these ideas and labeled them myths does not necessarily mean they are not true.


    Actually the science is quite good:

    http://archpsyc.jamanetwork.com/article.aspx?articleID=1874574&utm_source=Silverchair+Information+Systems&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=JAMAPsychiatry:OnlineFirst05/28/2014#Discussion


    We are linked with many religious and feminist groups, though the main thrust of our argument in non-moral. It's related to personal health and being able to enjoy sex more. We are giving up porn so that we enjoy sex as nature intended. Genetic fallacy again. Just because arguments come from religious and feminists groups doesn't mean they should be dismissed. And... argument from ignorance. There is no way Dr. Ley could know the career of every user of NoFap. Therefore there is no way he could could know that there are no neurophisiologists among our ranks.


    Evidence please?

    And again, regarding moral assumptions,Dr. Ley has mischaracterized us. NoFap is mainly concerned about enjoy life more, becoming healthier, having better sex, and reversing the negative effects of chronic porn consumption. Granted, many are doing it for moral reasons, but all of us are here because we feel that pornography has a negative effect on our lives.

    Also subjectivist fallacy. Dr. Ley concludes that our argument is subjective because our definition are subjective. Exactly how are our definitions subjective? I wonder what Dr. Ley suggests porn is? My definition (and this is not NoFap's official definition by the way) is that porn is some visual cue that causes arousal outside a sexual relationship.


    Dr. Ley has not proven that our data is bad. Nor has he proven that we are missing some vital understanding of the brain, sex, neuroplasticity, etc that would render our understanding of pornography and sex addiction fallacious. Again, we are not morally-driven, neither are our arguments (which of course doesn't mean that morally-driven arguments should be thrown out, but considered on their own premises), which are based on accurate science. And... we got a slippery slope mixed up with a straw man here... our arguments are not based on morals and even if they were it does not follow that because some sexual prudes a hundred years and some decades ago may have had similar thoughts as us that we are necessarily in support of such things as clitorectomies, homophobia and misogeny. In fact, many of our members are homosexuals and, when a moral argument does get expressed in our forums, it is usually in support of women's rights.


    It's hard to believe that millions of men are so terrified of performing well during sex that they can't get it up. Are these First World male specimens really such a sexual cowards? According to Dr. Ley a co-morbidity of problems, both environmental, medical and mental are the cause for ED. How does Dr. Ley account for ED when all these factors are ruled out as has happened anecdotaly on our forums?


    Very strange. Perhaps Dr. Ley has not come across all these studies?
    No, we find that scientific evidence backs up our beliefs.

    It is true that porn is always a symptom of something else, whether it be emotional problems, psychological problems, or anxiety. I don't see how this correlates to pornography not being addiction. Cocaine, heroine, methamphetamine and alcohol addiction is always a symptom of a much larger problem as well.

    The press has undoubtedly taken notice of us because there is sound evidence backing our claims and we are a community of people using that science to better our lives and be free from our addiction. Plus pornography is a controversial topic and people try to be free from it is an interesting topic.

    Inverse fallacist's fallacy. Even if porn addiction doesn't exist it doesn't follow that there is not some benefit from staying away from porn.

    We are making conscious choices about our sexuality. We are reclaiming it from pornography so we can have natural, more fulfilling sexual relationships.

    Men are not inherently weak. Pornography has made them weak. And to my knowledge nobody associated with NoFap has ever said that men who don't have ED are better then men who do. Another straw man. NoFap is all about becoming strong again, laying aside the emasculating effects of pornography and living into that masculinity nature had intended for us.
     
    Last edited: May 30, 2015
  16. Monk85

    Monk85 Fapstronaut

    37
    39
    18
    Let's just call it for what it is, Dr.Ley is a fortune seeker who probably gets paid very well for the trash he puts out about PMO and the sextoy/porn industry love him for his work, he wants to be Mr.WithTheTimes and I'm the cool Doctor that says it's okay to masturbate and look at porn! And this is probably why his arguments against us is so weak.
     
    KeenEye and Haggis like this.
  17. Monk85

    Monk85 Fapstronaut

    37
    39
    18
    And with his comments about NoFap, pardon my bluntness, but in my eyes that makes him a true dickhead.
     
    Haggis likes this.
  18. matthewmammothrept

    matthewmammothrept Der Rebütermensch
    Staff Member

    2,098
    2,685
    143
  19. JustADude

    JustADude Fapstronaut

    334
    305
    63
    I hope so! I would think that any professional who thoroughly and thoughtfully reads through the noFap forums, would have to soften their tone a bit about the addictive power of Porn. If David Ley hasn't become more accepting of the noFap stance, he will some day.
     
    matthewmammothrept likes this.
  20. matthewmammothrept

    matthewmammothrept Der Rebütermensch
    Staff Member

    2,098
    2,685
    143
    Yes he really is one of the last hold outs against the idea of sex addiction in psychiatry. I think he's softening his stance a little, though he'll probably still write about we're a bunch of blowhards for a while to save face. Not that I blame him. He's invested a large part of his career to the idea that sexual addiction is just bad choices about sex. Well, it is, of course, but that doesn't mean that the mechanisms of addiction aren't short-circuiting our logic centers and making choosing those bad sex choices look like a good idea.

    Anyways it sucks to be wrong and I really feel for David Ley because he has put himself on the wrong side of his profession. He only means well: we are responsible for our own sexual choices, even if addiction is driving us to do them. That's where I think Dr. Ley goes wrong. You don't need to take out addiciton to make people responsible for what they do. Yes, some people may blame their bad sex choices on their addiction and say they can't help themselves. But that's not what we are doing ehre. We are taking full responsibility over actions even if they are driven by addiction.
     
    JustADude likes this.

Share This Page