ALBUQUERQUE, Feb. 12 (UPI) — There’s no strong scientific research that shows pornography addictions exist, in fact viewing porn may have benefits, U.S. researchers say.
David Ley, a clinical psychologist in practice in Albuquerque, and executive director of New Mexico Solutions, a large behavioral health program, and colleagues conducted a review of the “pornography addiction model.”
Fewer than 2-in-5 research articles about high frequency sexual behavior was described as an addiction. Only 27 percent — 13-in-49 — of articles on porn addiction contained actual data, while only one psychophysiological study appeared last year.
The review highlighted the poor experimental designs, methodological rigor and lack of model specification of most studies on the topic of porn addiction.
The review, published in Current Sexual Health Reports, found very little evidence — if any at all — to support some of the purported negative side effects of porn addiction. There was no sign pornography was connected to erectile dysfunction, or that it caused any changes to the brains of users.
Clinicians should be aware people reporting “addiction” are more likely to be male, have a non-heterosexual orientation, have a high libido, tend towards sensation seeking and have religious values that conflict with their sexual behavior and desires, Ley said.
Ley and the team — including Nicole Prause and Peter Finn — said the positive benefits attached to viewing such images did not make it problematic de facto.
In fact, the research team said pornography might improve attitudes towards sexuality, increase quality of life, variety of sexual behaviors and increased pleasure in long-term relationships.
It also provides a legal outlet for illegal sexual behaviors or desires, and its consumption or availability has been associated with a decrease in sex offenses, especially child molestation, the review said.
Anti-porn fanatic and former Captain Kangaroo songwriter Judith Reisman has suggested that porn causes an addictive mixture of chemicals she calls “erototoxins” to flood the brain, leading to brain damage. Those who suffer such brain damage, she says, “are no longer expressing ‘free speech’ and, for their own good, shouldn’t be protected under the First Amendment.” Though she goes by “Doctor” Judith Reisman, she has no scientific background — her degree is in Communications.
“We need better methods to help people who struggle with the high frequency use of visual sexual stimuli, without pathologizing them or their use thereof,” writes Ley, who is critical about the pseudoscientific yet lucrative practices surrounding the treatment of so-called porn addiction:
“Rather than helping patients who may struggle to control viewing images of a sexual nature, the ‘porn addiction’ concept instead seems to feed an industry with secondary gain from the acceptance of the idea.“
Dead wrong: Judith Reisman with anti-porn fraudster Shelley Lubben
[…] Researchers: No such thing as ‘porn addiction’ […]
Seriously, guys, did you absolutely have to plant Judith Reisman’s grill in that story?? My nightmares are now officially set for the next 2 years. Gee..thanks. (Oh, and seems like Shelley needs a new plastic surgeon, too.)
OTOH…nice to see that people are getting hep finally to the scam that is “porn addiction”.
I’ve said from the start that porn addiction is a scam to make money perpetrated by our “friends” in the healthcare industry. Once a “problem” has been medicalized there will automatically be treatment and pharmacological profits to be made from it. What I hate most about this bullshit from the usual sources is the way it cheapens the real suffering of actual addicts, who are defined by legitimate doctors as suffering from a physical dependency on a substance that, if made unavailable, causes excruciating physical effects. When you can show me some guy puking, shitting, sweating, convulsed and running a… Read more »
[…] There is no solid scientific research that shows pornography addictions exist… and in fact viewing porn may have benefits, researchers say. […]