Take a photo of a barcode or cover
greden 's review for:
Your Brain On Porn: Internet Pornography and the Emerging Science of Addiction
by Gary Wilson, Anthony Jack
A well-written and convincing account of the dangers of porn use, written by someone who has been heavily involved in online forums designed to help men quit porn. It includes a lot of science, particularly in neurochemistry and studies on pornography use, and lots of quotes from the online forums he's been involved in. It seems like the author has a very realistic grip on the issue, so to say, by the thousands upon thousands of self-reports of men online together with the science. It's a really great compilation of advice and concepts useful for knowing how to, and getting motivation for quitting.
While I agree with the author on almost all points, and I especially support the idea that internet porn is extremely addictive and destructive, still, I don't share the author's view that internet porn is somehow qualitatively different than any other, say "masturbatory material" for lack of a better term.
Wilson has been involved in this community for so long that "internet porn" has become the devil, and is associated with all things bad. For example, sexual fantasy is fine, but fantasizing about a porn scenario is problematic. It begs the question ... what exactly is "porn," or rather, what is fine to masturbate to, fantasize about, or visually consume for the dopamines.
Toward the end, there was a brief discussion about a distinction between "good porn" and "bad porn," which I'm not entirely enthusiastic about. Wilson doesn't flat-out deny there's "good porn," but he warns that it's too easy to slip into "bad porn" by using "good porn."
He dismisses the discussion pretty quickly by saying that "the difference between good porn and bad porn is beyond the realm of science and can never resolve," he continues, "Let us steer away from unscientific distractions and back on to the hard science."
So, whatever cannot be scientifically proven is merely an unhelpful distraction. The author shows a complete lack of interest in philosophy and feels the only things worth discussing are those things that can be scientifically backed. The issue, however, is that while some things might be difficult for a scientific experiment, they are worth discussing because a clearer view of where to draw the line does have a positive effect on men's lives.
Again, I agree that internet video porn is uniquely harmful - it's not clear to me how an "old-fashioned magazine," which the author says might be "good porn," is qualitatively different. While yes, Playboy magazines back in the day did not create a plethora of men with social anxiety, lack of interest in dating, and sexual & erectile dysfunction, I still cannot agree that "internet porn" is the root of the problem here. As the author writes, porn addiction becomes more about the porn than any sexual satisfaction or relief, and I supposed what he wants is to get men unhooked off porn, and learn how to have healthy masturbatory habits.
In response to men who view porn as an "edge" to it, but don't ejaculate, Wilson writes that it's the porn that's the primary issue, and ejaculation is secondary.
In other words, he thinks it's fine to masturbate and ejaculate to a Playboy magazine or sexual fantasy (which is not a "porn scenario" of course), but simply viewing porn is inherently harmful. I suppose you can say the author and I come from two different perspectives here because I think both masturbation and pornography are essentially inseparable - and the goal is to make men as virile as possible, and merely quitting hardcore internet porn is selling yourself short. It's like quitting the most dangerous obvious poison and calling it a day, satisfied with using milder forms of the poison. And then where the line between acceptable dosage of poison is irrelevant because it's hard to decipher scientifically.
On that note, it is interesting to see that reframing porn addiction in biological terms does seem to be helpful. While the pictures of neurons showing neuroplasticity and the dopamine system are, well, somewhat of an artificial understanding, it does seem to work, somehow. I suppose it is because of the strength of faith we have in science, and its reputation for being the "unwavering truth." There's something to the idea of hearing about neurotransmitters with names, particular genes with names, and chemicals and dopamine, etc etc... that gives us some sort of common humanity, security, and not the least, a sort of neutrality of morality. It's no longer about religious shaming or demons, but rather, having your neurochemistry, your ancient, primal, evolutionary psychology your reward circuits, which otherwise is meant for survival, hijacked and taken advantage of, by modern technology.
It's a good perspective, but I don't think we should throw away moralism, or the understanding of spirits and demons, as I think that language is perfectly compatible with biological language.
The confidence and security of the biological understanding can be pushed a bit far ... for example when Wilson tried to explain why doing forbidden things is unnaturally arousing, by saying that "Dopamin urged our ancestors to risk embarking for new territories and avoid inbreeding." Did we evolve to prefer taking risks and novelty, because that leads to less inbreeding? I think this is a typical overplay of the "use biology [evolutionary psychology] to explain everything," to sound more convincing and authoritative.
While I agree with the author on almost all points, and I especially support the idea that internet porn is extremely addictive and destructive, still, I don't share the author's view that internet porn is somehow qualitatively different than any other, say "masturbatory material" for lack of a better term.
Wilson has been involved in this community for so long that "internet porn" has become the devil, and is associated with all things bad. For example, sexual fantasy is fine, but fantasizing about a porn scenario is problematic. It begs the question ... what exactly is "porn," or rather, what is fine to masturbate to, fantasize about, or visually consume for the dopamines.
Toward the end, there was a brief discussion about a distinction between "good porn" and "bad porn," which I'm not entirely enthusiastic about. Wilson doesn't flat-out deny there's "good porn," but he warns that it's too easy to slip into "bad porn" by using "good porn."
He dismisses the discussion pretty quickly by saying that "the difference between good porn and bad porn is beyond the realm of science and can never resolve," he continues, "Let us steer away from unscientific distractions and back on to the hard science."
So, whatever cannot be scientifically proven is merely an unhelpful distraction. The author shows a complete lack of interest in philosophy and feels the only things worth discussing are those things that can be scientifically backed. The issue, however, is that while some things might be difficult for a scientific experiment, they are worth discussing because a clearer view of where to draw the line does have a positive effect on men's lives.
Again, I agree that internet video porn is uniquely harmful - it's not clear to me how an "old-fashioned magazine," which the author says might be "good porn," is qualitatively different. While yes, Playboy magazines back in the day did not create a plethora of men with social anxiety, lack of interest in dating, and sexual & erectile dysfunction, I still cannot agree that "internet porn" is the root of the problem here. As the author writes, porn addiction becomes more about the porn than any sexual satisfaction or relief, and I supposed what he wants is to get men unhooked off porn, and learn how to have healthy masturbatory habits.
In response to men who view porn as an "edge" to it, but don't ejaculate, Wilson writes that it's the porn that's the primary issue, and ejaculation is secondary.
In other words, he thinks it's fine to masturbate and ejaculate to a Playboy magazine or sexual fantasy (which is not a "porn scenario" of course), but simply viewing porn is inherently harmful. I suppose you can say the author and I come from two different perspectives here because I think both masturbation and pornography are essentially inseparable - and the goal is to make men as virile as possible, and merely quitting hardcore internet porn is selling yourself short. It's like quitting the most dangerous obvious poison and calling it a day, satisfied with using milder forms of the poison. And then where the line between acceptable dosage of poison is irrelevant because it's hard to decipher scientifically.
On that note, it is interesting to see that reframing porn addiction in biological terms does seem to be helpful. While the pictures of neurons showing neuroplasticity and the dopamine system are, well, somewhat of an artificial understanding, it does seem to work, somehow. I suppose it is because of the strength of faith we have in science, and its reputation for being the "unwavering truth." There's something to the idea of hearing about neurotransmitters with names, particular genes with names, and chemicals and dopamine, etc etc... that gives us some sort of common humanity, security, and not the least, a sort of neutrality of morality. It's no longer about religious shaming or demons, but rather, having your neurochemistry, your ancient, primal, evolutionary psychology your reward circuits, which otherwise is meant for survival, hijacked and taken advantage of, by modern technology.
It's a good perspective, but I don't think we should throw away moralism, or the understanding of spirits and demons, as I think that language is perfectly compatible with biological language.
The confidence and security of the biological understanding can be pushed a bit far ... for example when Wilson tried to explain why doing forbidden things is unnaturally arousing, by saying that "Dopamin urged our ancestors to risk embarking for new territories and avoid inbreeding." Did we evolve to prefer taking risks and novelty, because that leads to less inbreeding? I think this is a typical overplay of the "use biology [evolutionary psychology] to explain everything," to sound more convincing and authoritative.