You would THINK that this statement should put the matter to rest once and for all.
You would think.......
Dreams have been described as dress rehearsals for real life, opportunities to gratify wishes, and a form of nocturnal therapy. A new theory aims to make sense of it all.
Verified by Psychology Today
On Nov 29, 2016, the American Association of Sex Educators, Counselors and Therapists released a historic position statement about the sex addiction model. I was a key member of the committee assigned to draft the statement and it comes on the heels of a previous statement I facilitated in which AASECT officially depathologized all forms of consensual sexual activity, found here.
I have much to say about this process, and I've written extensively about sex addiction in this column before, but for now in this article I will share the official release of the sex addiction position statement, along with additional commentary provided by Ian Kerner, Chair of the Public Relations, Media & Advocacy Steering Committee, on how the statement was created. Enjoy
As Chair of the Public Relations, Media & Advocacy Steering Committee (PRMA), I was recently tasked to oversee the development of a position statement on the topic of sex addiction. As you may know, AASECT already has a policy of not offering AASECT CE credits for sex addiction programming, nor does it accept CE credits towards AASECT Certification or renewal in the area of sex addiction, and we wanted to draft a statement that would further articulate AASECT's position on this topic. Additionally, many AASECT members have been asking for such a statement for quite a few years, and we wanted to capitalize on the energy of our recent Summer Institute, which focused on out of control sexual behavior that was attended by dozens of professionals with diverse perspectives and practices (including practices focused on sex addiction) and that provided a forum for an extremely vibrant dialogue.
In order to fulfill the charge, I put together a small team, which included Doug Braun-Harvey, Michael Aaron, Michael Vigorito and Russell Stambaugh. The dialogue at the 2016 Summer Institute influenced the first draft of the position statement. This team then worked diligently for many weeks to finesse the draft statement. They then sought feedback from a dozen AASECT members for further feedback. (Each member of the drafting committee approached three AASECT members for feedback at their discretion.) Two members abstained from comment and the feedback of the other ten members was considered and integrated into a revised draft that was then submitted to me. From there, I submitted the draft to other Board members, Committee Chairs and various committee members for additional feedback, particularly in regard to how such a statement might impact their various areas of oversight. Altogether, the statement was influenced by conversations with dozens of AASECT members, and more than 30 AASECT members were involved in either its draft or review.
While it was made clear to me that there was no rush to review or vote on such a statement, by the time our semi-annual Board Meeting arrived this month, we felt that the position statement was indeed ready for a vote. It was unanimously approved by the Board of Directors with Doug Braun-Harvey (Treasurer) recusing himself from voting and one other member abstaining. On the evening of November 18, Board members stayed after the meeting to host a Meet and Greet , organized by AASECT's Vice President of Membership Sally Valentine, with Chicago area AASECT members. At this meeting, Board members shared more about the process of how position statements are developed through the work of AASECT members and committees, with the present statement as an example.
Below you will find the position statement on sex addiction that was approved by the Board and which will join other AASECT positions statements on our website alongside our Vision of Sexual Health (with which this statement is consistent). To clarify, this is a statement about sex addiction therapy as a treatment model and educational pedagogy, but it is not a statement about individual members. It is a position statement and not a policy statement, which means, for example, that those with dual membership in AASECT and, say, the International Institute for Trauma and Addiction Professionals (IITAP), may still remain members of AASECT. Additionally, we will not discourage individuals who subscribe to the sex addiction model from seeking membership or certification within AASECT. We will, however, continue to offer opportunities for trainings that utilize models that we feel are more consistent with AASECT's Vision of Sexual Health and with the scientific and clinical scholarship in this area.
I would like to offer my personal thanks to our current President, President-elect and entire Board, as well as all those who played a role in drafting this clear, concise statement. Additionally, I would like to thank everyone who participated in the recent Summer Institute on out of control sexual behavior, as well as those who have been patiently (and in some cases not-so patiently) waiting for AASECT to issue a statement on the topic of sex addiction. And finally I would like to thank those few, but strong, voices who had the conviction to express their opposition to such a statement.
We understand that not all of AASECT's position statements will be consistent with the views of every single member, and we are committed to remaining an organization that fosters conversation and respects difference.
If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me directly at iankerner@gmail.com, and I will do my best to either respond or forward your inquiry to the appropriate Committee Chair.
Sincerely,
Ian Kerner, PhD, LMFT, CSC
Chair, PRMA Steering Committee
__________________________________________________________________________________________
AASECT Position Statement - Sex Addiction
Founded in 1967, the American Association of Sexuality Educators, Counselors and Therapists (AASECT) is devoted to the promotion of sexual health by the development and advancement of the fields of sexual education, counseling and therapy. With this mission, AASECT accepts the responsibility of training, certifying and advancing high standards in the practice of sexuality education services, counseling and therapy. When contentious topics and cultural conflicts impede sexual education and health care, AASECT may publish position statements to clarify standards to protect consumer sexual health and sexual rights.
AASECT recognizes that people may experience significant physical, psychological, spiritual and sexual health consequences related to their sexual urges, thoughts or behaviors. AASECT recommends that its members utilize models that do not unduly pathologize consensual sexual problems. AASECT 1) does not find sufficient empirical evidence to support the classification of sex addiction or porn addiction as a mental health disorder, and 2) does not find the sexual addiction training and treatment methods and educational pedagogies to be adequately informed by accurate human sexuality knowledge. Therefore, it is the position of AASECT that linking problems related to sexual urges, thoughts or behaviors to a porn/sexual addiction process cannot be advanced by AASECT as a standard of practice for sexuality education delivery, counseling or therapy.
AASECT advocates for a collaborative movement to establish standards of care supported by science, public health consensus and the rigorous protection of sexual rights for consumers seeking treatment for problems related to consensual sexual urges, thoughts or behaviors.
You would THINK that this statement should put the matter to rest once and for all.
You would think.......
There’s no reason why such a statement should put the matter to rest: it’s a position statement, not a dogmatic definition.
It is clearly based on two premises, and neither of them are set in stone: if AASECT 1) subsequently finds sufficient empirical evidence to support the classification of sex addiction or porn addiction as a mental health disorder or 2) subsequently finds the sexual addiction training and treatment methods and educational pedagogies to be adequately informed by accurate human sexuality knowledge it could quite legitimately adopt a new position.
And, more obviously, AASECT’s position isn’t necessarily going to extend to other bodies.
Hi Michael,
In my world (I'm a licensed psychotherapist in private practice, Certified Sex Addiction Therapist, and a recovered sex addict), sex addiction is the most relevant descriptor of a pathological and high risk relationship to sexuality that some people have, and I used to - just so you know my perspective. If you want to read my story with this POV, I wrote a book about it: Naked in Public: A Memoir of Recovery From Sex Addiction and Other Temporary Insanities, available on Amazon.
I fear AASECT's position will leave many therapists, educators and counselors without the necessary understanding or competence to refer to trained professionals who know how to assess and treat sex addiction. It's one thing to say "What you're describing is beyond my theoretical capacity and training to treat, and I need to refer you to someone who specializes in this area" (ethical scope of practice referral) and to say "you do not have an addiction, sex addiction doesn't exist." To me that is harmful. Does this mean AASECT also denounces the active 12-Step fellowships organized for the primary purpose of supporting its members around the world stop addictive sexual behaviors (SAA, SLAA)? I presume referrals to those organizations would also be nonsensical in this new AASECT paradigm?
Most of my clients have seen several other therapists who told them their "problem" did not exist as addiction and they tried many other options to "get control of their out of control behaviors" until the consequences of their compulsion got so severe they had to realize that regardless of what some professionals believed, if they did not get help they were going to die or lose their freedom (prison) or, if they hadn't already, a relationship/family that meant the world to them.
I fear this denial will prolong needless suffering. Since there is already ample evidence in the legitimate research related to porn addiction and sex addiction (see http://yourbrainonporn.com/doing-what-you-evolved-to-do for examples), perhaps only negative consequences for professionals, which could now reasonably extend to AASECT, for malpractice after an escalation of untreated sex addiction/compulsion will bring a theoretical expansion (e.g., ethical violations for treating beyond scope of practice training and understanding). I hope it comes sooner than that.
I once explored joining AASECT, but after seeing which way the winds were blowing with the elevation of sex-addiction denier David Ley (author of "Ethical Porn for Dicks"), I decided against it.
I see this as a massive regression for sex therapy, back to the days when tobacco was debated as addictive or not. Doctors and nurses used to smoke in their exam rooms with patients. It's like AASECT is saying "We don't believe tobacco is addictive. People may get out of control with their smoking, but it's not actually physically addictive." I think this statement is harmful for AASECT and, until reversed, will further its irrelevancy.
Hi Stacy,
That model has provided misinformation as a part of training therapists. I am not an AASECT member, but I am thrilled they took this step to protect patients. For example, this fake diagnoses has been around over 30 years and there are still no randomly controlled treatment trials. If they cared more about patients than profit, they would have RCTs by now.
I hope this graphic might be helpful in considering the sources of your information:
https://twitter.com/NicoleRPrause/status/803836047771701250
There also is a forthcoming letter from a large group of neuroscientists in the Salt Lake Tribune that dispels the rants from the sexist website you cited written by someone with no training...in this case, expertise matters.
Another way to frame this is an opportunity to find ways of helping people who are distressed that are actually shown to be helpful by science. I think we all would like that.
List one: http://www.yourbrainonporn.com/brain-scan-studies-porn-users
Contains 38 papers:
- 28 neurological studies to porn users and sex addicts.
- 10 recent reviews of the literature.
The results of all the studies and the reviews support the addiction model.
List two : http://yourbrainonporn.com/studies-reported-relationships-between-porn-use-or-porn-addictionsex-addiction-and-sexual
Contains over 50 studies
- 17 studies have linked porn use or porn/sex addiction to erectile dysfunction, delayed ejaculation, anorgasmia, low libido, and lower brain activation to sexual stimuli. The first 3 studies demonstrate causation as participants eliminated porn use and healed chronic sexual dysfunctions.
- 34 studies reporting correlations between porn use and less sexual or relationship satisfaction:
AASECT is out of step with the research and with reality.
The poster insists "name one", but I am honestly not sure what it is I am supposed to be responding to. I have a PhD in research and taught research methods for years to college students, so the infographic is a useful way of communicating basic principles for evaluating science to people who (ahem) have no background in science. The website is on the list of "bad sources" in the infographic, which you clearly did not read nor attempt to respond to since you are posting from it.
Here is another infographic, which shows the website you refer to primarily is interested in denigrating women, in addition to falsifying science:
https://twitter.com/NicoleRPrause/status/796443696791048192
Your arguments have been copy+pasted without thought so many times it led me to have to create these. To readers who got this far, this is literally the same strategy they have used for 30 years instead of actually working on treatments to help people who are distressed.
So now...enjoy!
Because nowhere did I say "name one". And citing 2 lists of peer-reviewed studies from the link that Staci Sprout provided is hardly "angry".
I just wanted to make sure that readers could see for themselves where the preponderance of empirical research points.
The second snappy infographic, like the first, contains no empirical evidence to support the AASECT position.
Notice how the poster:
1. Still fails to provide any credentials
2. Claims conspiracy, they know better than the experts because of a secret website they created
3. Uses denigrating language to try to provoke and insult rather than problem-solve.
4. Still refuses to acknowledge any positive aspects of sex films (logic error: black or white thinking)
This poster is the problem.
For my part, we just today published a brain stimulation technique that can help people manage their sex drive http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0165646
Why are most CSAT's EX "sex addicts"? Think you might have a bit of a confirmation bias?
Anonymous wrote:Why are most CSAT's EX "sex addicts"? Think you might have a bit of a confirmation bias?
...glad Someone said it...
as a Licensed Psychotherapist, working with couples primarily - problems have escalated EXPODENTIALLY with the event of free & endless access to pornography at a keystroke. The Dopamine rush over & over provided by this elevated drive mimics the same urge/fix of similar addictive behaviors. Feeding the rush, must...have...it...
I am intrigued by those who perpetuate the concept challenging {Sex for some is addictive}, and by those who make this their speciality in life. I see patterns of Sex Therapy interest coming from mostly male /& or gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender specialty practitioners. I watch it as the demographic radically conflicts with what I saw in participation as a profession as a whole in my grad studies/what I see in all my professional organizations & in my peers/colleague who practice general psychotherapy.
We are a mostly female field. Intriguing. I will continue to study this outlier. For now I align with the quote mentioned above and question of 'confirmation bias'. Ethically speaking, I find the publication of this position paper unhelpful, suspect in what their goal is, and professionally irresponsible. Those who are habitual/dependent on their "ping"/dopamine rush at the cost causing great distress/pain/desolation of a committed partner eg the million dollar definition of "problem" - causing problems for you, your loved ones, your job, etc is not broached in the least with this partner. With a brush stroke the authors of this position paper/and it's title, are saying, 'It ain't a problem for those consenting sexually robust and kinky adults...', THEREFORE it ain't a problem for the the majority of more typical folks in committed relationships. Maybe another title would be, "Sexual Addiction is a problem in relationships where one mate has typical/non-sexist/non kink sex drive." ie - typical=the majority. What I am seeing too lends to my above point with (is typical now being shifted with the event of highly lobbied/'First Amendment hiding', free/ unfettered access to all levels of fantasy porn online?) As Ethical Therapists Please consider more bio/psycho/and social research/outcomes/peer reviewed support, and though this may ignite a defense mechanism or two/possible transference, consider some personal introspection time as cited above-prior to printing headlines that seep into my office- the growing rebuttal of the perp towards the aggrieved mate, "I am not sexually addicted, see! it says *here* there is no such thing." Turns out one's actions really do cause trouble/dilemma, obstacles, heartache for the aggrieved partner. You guys in essence say that is "AOK" in your statement to the world.
As a recovered sex addict, I have experience I'm able to share that may be helpful to others. That's why I wrote my story, to help others better understand what sex addiction is and that it's possible to recover. Shame is devastating when sexual behavior chronically takes over one's moral judgment, via compulsion. Genuine whole-hearted connection is an antidote. I have met CSATs whom, like me, felt called to learn tools to help clinically and found our graduate and post-grad training severely lacking. But plenty of CSATs are not sexually addicted. I don't know if "most" is accurate; how could you know that? There are no stats. Some felt inspired for other reasons.
Nicole, since you clearly do not subscribe to the sex addiction model and the treatment modalities promoted by CSAT therapists -- what would be your preferred treatment approach for an individual struggling with compulsive masturbation, an inability to stop watching pornography despite efforts to cut down on use, and a desire to escalate sexual behaviors to now include prostitutes and massage parlors (a "typical" client that might be considered by some a sex addict). Not looking for a specific diagnosis (or to pick a fight) -- just seriously curious what theoretical approaches would you first suggest as an intervention?
There are several models left to test that might better describe these behaviors. The three leaders to me include:
High sex drive
Sexual compulsivity
Social shame
For high sex drive, this could use transcranial magnetic brain stimulation (http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0165646) or self-regulation strategies. I am less optimistic about the later, because most of those treatments were developed for NEGATIVE affect, and sexual arousal feels good. It might be difficult to motivate patients to downregulate sexual arousal. We have tried in the lab.
Compulsivity could rely on OCD treatments with sexual features. Notably, this would differ from addiction treatment in that it does not have an abstinence goal, in addition to other features.
If social shame, then psychoeducation and collaboration with the cultural institutions contributing to the shame seems more appropriate.
Thank you for the question. I think many times people are misinterpreting "not addiction" as "not a problem". That is definitely not what I mean to communicate, but it's hard to get this message through over the yelling sometimes! I would love if the conversation would move more this direction: what WOULD help best?
Nicole, thank you for the response. I agree that this issue tends to invite shouting over each other and perhaps some clinical turf building – and, as someone who has read some of your more “charged” posts in the past, I am very happy to have received such a measured reply.
So, let me pose an additional question I’ve thought to ask you in the past. First, can I assume that you recognize and support an addiction model as it relates to alcohol and substance use? If so, would you be willing to consider an addiction model for sexual behavior if the research (and, I agree, it needs to be rigorous) could support similar diagnostic criteria (ie, tolerance, withdrawal, inability to cut down on use, etc)? Likewise, do you have concerns regarding the gambling disorder diagnosis?
As you likely are aware, for clinicians and medical professionals that work closely with addiction in other areas – there are just too many similarities in behavior, treatment success, and co-occurring addictive behaviors to summarily dismiss the addiction model out-of-hand. We’re in agreement that the research on each side needs to improve; but for the sake of all of our patients I would encourage the AASECT “camp” to stop portraying CSAT professionals as snake-oil salesmen pushing a discredited approach. It’s just not the case. There are many highly qualified and credentialed professionals that do believe the sex addiction model that are just looking to help patients lessen their pain as well.
Look forward to your thoughts.
I am not a member of AASECT (no particular reason), so I don't have any sway.
I have seen many CSAT (posts/books/television) where they grossly misrepresent neuroscience. I have no doubt they have some strong clinical skills. I am a licensed psychologist, but don't, for example, have experience to run any groups. What I do not see is any real neuroscientist working with CSATs. Seriously, they mostly cite a massage therapist with no college degree who butchers neuroscience. In the same way I would never offer group therapy, even with my license, I do believe they are not acknowledging the limits of their knowledge with respect to neuroscience. They need to solicit neuroscience expertise, and I would be quite happy to point out some moderate folks who might work with them.
Substances are able to drive the physical system beyond what can be done endogenously. This does make them unique, but there are debates about some border symptoms (some are considered more "core" to an addiction than others). I am on the stricter end of those debates. For example, I also have publications about Internet and gaming that I do not think meet these criteria either.
The core scientific issue is that science is not a see-saw. You can literally have 40000 studies that say porn "lights up" reward centers (I've published some of them!) but it must meet all the tenants of the addiction model or it is considered falsified. One reason my LPP paper is such a pain for people is that most scientists do agree that addictions should exhibit "enhanced cue reactivity", and sex films did not. I have seen CSATs have no idea what EEG is or what LPP pretend the work is discredited, and it simply isn't. In addition, there are many behavioral studies that falsify other aspects of the addiction model. The easiest summary is here:
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0301051116301867
This is why I (we?) have the perception of snake oil salesmen. I know they are misrepresenting neuroscience. I've seen CSATs do it hundreds of times at this point. And saying "28 studies say reward lights up" shows they don't know neuroscience, because science relies on falsification, not a see-saw. We probably are not going to agree on this point, but I hope this makes clear why I do believe they are pushing a discredited approach.
And yes, "charged" happens when people tell you you are misinterpreting your own data. I have many questions about sex film viewing and problems myself, but getting the message out when I am told to disregard my own findings is, well, impossible.
And I'm serious about that neuro hookup! They seriously need somebody helping with the neuroscience, it's really bad.
with the interpretations of Prause et al., 2015.
Four reviews of the literature and one letter to the editor have addressed the findings of Prause et al., 2015. All agree that lower LPP in the more frequent porn users in response to sexual images indicates habituation (at the very least). The papers state that this finding appears consistent with the addiction model.
First we have two 2016 reviews by Marc Potenza, Valerie Voon, and Shane Kraus.
1 – “Neurobiology of Compulsive Sexual Behavior: Emerging Science” (2016)
2 – “Should compulsive sexual behavior be considered an addiction?” (2016)
Potenza of Yale University and Voon of Cambridge U. are two of the top neuroscientists in the world. Marc Potenza may be the world’s number one expert in behavioral addiction, with 400 or more studies to his name.
These experts disagree with Dr, Prause, and say that lower LPP indicates habituation and is consistent with the Kuhn & Gallinat 2014 findings of less brain activation to still images. Voon & Potenza pointed out that the Prause et al., subjects differed from those with actual porn addiction.
------
Here’s a 2015 review that includes Matthias Brand and Christian Laier of University of Duisburg-Essen.
3 – “Neuroscience of Internet Pornography Addiction: A Review and Update” (2015)
Brand who has about 300 publications, and his team, have published over a dozen studies on compulsive internet porn users, including an fMRI study. A few paragraphs their review is devoted to Prause et al., 2015. Like Voon and Potenza, they seem to agree that less brain activation to sexual images indicates habituation or desensitization. They say the Prause findings align with Kuhn & Gallinat, 2014.
------
The following review contains 7 US Navy doctors, including urologists and psychiatrists. One of the MD’s also has a PhD in neuroscience from John Hopkins University.
4 – “Is Internet Pornography Causing Sexual Dysfunctions? A Review with Clinical Reports” (2016)
Like the 3 reviews above they too believe that Prause et al found habituation in frequent porn users.
---------------
The following is a critique by neuroscientist Matuesz Gola who has published several EEG studies, and studies on porn users. He has also done an fMRI study on problematic porn users.
5- “Decreased LPP for sexual images in problematic pornography users may be consistent with addiction models. Everything depends on the model (Commentary on Prause, Steele, Staley, Sabatinelli, & Hajcak, 2015)”
Gola agreed with the above 4 reviews: Prause et al., 2015 found habituation, and that the findings are consistent with the addiction model. Gola also expressed deep concern about Dr. Prause’s media campaign claiming that a single EEG study had debunked porn and sex addiction:
GOLA SAID: “Unfortunately the bold title of Prause et al. (2015) article has already had an impact on mass media, 4 thus popularizing scientifically unjustified conclusion. Due to the social and political importance of the topic of the effects of pornography consumption, researchers should draw future conclusions with greater caution.”
Gola also raised concerns about the Prause et al., 2015 methodology. As Gola explained in more detail:
1 –Prause’s subjects were probably not porn addicts (you cannot falsify porn addiction if you don’t have porn addicts).
2 – Prause’s subjects were heterogeneous (males, females, non-heterosexuals). That’s not acceptable in EEG or fMRI studies as males and females have quite different brain responses to the same sexual stimuli.
------
Question: how can a single EEG study debunk the addiction model when:
1) Several peer-reviewed papers question the study’s interpretations and methods.
2) There are 2 dozen or so neuroscience studies that support the addiction model.
3) Science doesn’t lean to a single outlying study; it leans to the preponderance of evidence.
This is copy and pasted from Gary Wilson's website without acknolwedgement. Gary Wilson has stalked, threatened and used sexist language against Dr. Prause for over 4 years. It has no basis in reality, and is part of why AASECT had to disavow the fake neuroscience presented (notice no quotes for any of it, because they don't exist):
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-cybersecurity-socialmedia-idUSKCN0XP1WD
"The abuse varied in scope, from repeated claims that she faked her data to comments about her appearance.
"I had a TED Talk (posted online) and they just filled it with 'tranny' comments," said Prause, who worked at the University of California-Los Angeles at the time the attacks began. "They have definitely singled me out."
Prause filed a cease-and-desist order against her harassers, and said those persons are no longer allowed to contact her directly. But Prause said she spent around $5,000 to mitigate the damage over the years, hiring an attorney and someone to take screenshots of the abuse lobbed at her online."
https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2016/nov/25/female-orgasm-research
"People started posting stories online that I had falsified my data and I received all kinds of sexist attacks,” she said. Soon anonymous emails of complaint were turning up at the office of the president of UCLA, where she worked from 2012 to 2014, demanding that Prause be fired."
http://poptech.org/popcasts/finding_liberos
"Now, my name is on this stalker's website over 1500 times"
Online stalking, harassment, and fake conspiracies are their only defense and the entire field knows Gary Wilson as a fraud.
I want to express my disagreement with this post - talk about blame-shifting! Gary Wilson has helped countless people with his paradigm-shifting, brave work. It is not difficult to sort out his credibility when you read his writing or view his TED talk. 7,504,539 views - that is striking a nerve culturally. What is all this meanness about deriding "credibility"?
Anyone who cares about child sexual development, especially of young boys, will honor the contributions of Gary Wilson to the global conversation.
Yep, this is Gary Wilson and he loves to lie to people. This was published months ago, literally alongside Gola's (which was a letter, not peer-reviewed) and debunks it all, but Gary Wilson pretends it doesn't exist to deceive readers:
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0301051116301867
Gary Wilson is the definition of scientific fraud as defined here:
http://www.forbes.com/sites/emilywillingham/2012/11/08/10-questions-to-distinguish-real-from-fake-science/#e606e36533bf
He meets every single criteria.
Dr. Mateusz Gola's critique of Prause et al., 2015. Nor did the Prause et al. letter to the editor address the 4 other critiques listed above.
A link to the full Mateusz Gola critique - https://www.researchgate.net/publication/303511291_Decreased_LPP_for_sexual_images_in_problematic_pornography_users_may_be_consistent_with_addiction_models_Everything_depends_on_the_model_Commentary_on_Prause_Steele_Staley_Sabatinelli_Hajcak_2015
Here's an extensive analysis of the Prause et al. reply to Dr. Gola -
http://yourbrainonporn.com/critique-letter-editor-%E2%80%9Cprause-et-al-2015-latest-falsification-addiction-predictions%E2%80%9D
Wait wait wait, so the authors RESPONDED to the letter, you tried to fake out the readers of these comments by not mentioning it initially, and when you get caught, you direct people to a fake news website that you wrote?
Gary Wilson is delusional.
Lots of attempts at diversion on this thread, but top neuroscientists such Voon, Potenza, Kraus, Brand, Laier, and others are saying that the Prause et al. methodology and conclusions are highly suspect.
For example, here's what neuroscientists Christian Laier, Matthias Brand, Dr. Raju Hajela, MD, MPH, and others said about Prause et al., 2015 in this Review: "Neuroscience of Internet Pornography Addiction: A Review and Update". Link - http://www.mdpi.com/2076-328X/5/3/388/htm
Prause et al. is Reference 309
-------------------------------------------
Another EEG study involving three of the same authors was recently published [309]. Unfortunately, this new study suffered from many of the same methodological issues as the prior one [303]. For example, it used a heterogeneous subject pool, the researchers employed screening questionnaires that have not been validated for pathological internet pornography users, and the subjects were not screened for other manifestations of addiction or mood disorders.
In the new study, Prause et al. compared EEG activity of frequent viewers of Internet pornography with that of controls as they viewed both sexual and neutral images [309]. As expected, the LPP amplitude relative to neutral pictures increased for both groups, although the amplitude increase was smaller for the IPA subjects. Expecting a greater amplitude for frequent viewers of Internet pornography, the authors stated, “This pattern appears different from substance addiction models”.
While greater ERP amplitudes in response to addiction cues relative to neutral pictures is seen in substance addiction studies, the current finding is not unexpected, and aligns with the findings of Kühn and Gallinat [263], who found more use correlated with less brain activation in response to sexual images. In the discussion section, the authors cited Kühn and Gallinat and offered habituation as a valid explanation for the lower LPP pattern. A further explanation offered by Kühn and Gallinat, however, is that intense stimulation may have resulted in neuroplastic changes. Specifically, higher pornography use correlated with lower grey matter volume in the dorsal striatum, a region associated sexual arousal and motivation [265].
It’s important to note that the findings of Prause et al. were in the opposite direction of what they expected [309]. One might expect frequent viewers of Internet pornography and controls to have similar LPP amplitudes in response to brief exposure to sexual images if pathological consumption of Internet pornography had no effect. Instead, the unexpected finding of Prause et al. [309] suggests that frequent viewers of Internet pornography experience habituation to still images. One might logically parallel this to tolerance. In today’s world of high-speed Internet access, it is very likely that frequent consumers of Internet pornography users view sexual films and videos as opposed to still clips. Sexual films produce more physiological and subjective arousal than sexual images [310] and viewing sexual films results in less interest and sexual responsiveness to sexual images [311]. Taken together, the Prause et al., and Kühn and Gallinat studies lead to the reasonable conclusion that frequent viewers of internet pornography require greater visual stimulation to evoke brain responses comparable to healthy controls or moderate porn users.
In addition, the statement of Prause et al. [309] that, “These are the first functional physiological data of persons reporting VSS regulation problems” is problematic because it overlooks research published earlier [262,263]. Moreover, it is critical to note that one of the major challenges in assessing brain responses to cues in Internet pornography addicts is that viewing sexual stimuli is the addictive behavior. In contrast, cue-reactivity studies on cocaine addicts utilize pictures related to cocaine use (white lines on a mirror), rather than having subjects actually ingest cocaine. Since the viewing of sexual images and videos is the addictive behavior, future brain activation studies on Internet pornography users must take caution in both experimental design and interpretation of results. For example, in contrast to the one-second exposure to still images used by Prause et al. [309], Voon et al. chose explicit 9-second video clips in their cue reactivity paradigm to more closely match Internet porn stimuli [262]. Unlike the one-second exposure to still images (Prause et al. [309]), exposure to 9-second video clips evoked greater brain activation in heavy viewers of internet pornography than did one-second exposure to still images. It is further concerning that the authors referenced the Kühn and Gallinat study, released at the same time as the Voon study [262], yet they did not acknowledge the Voon et al. study anywhere in their paper despite its critical relevance.
---------------------------------------
What do you have to say about the above? More fake news?
See David Ley's comments section where I caught Gary Wilson posting as "anonymous" and caught his IP address on the website www.pornhelps.com
Gary Wilson is sick, obsessed, has no knowledge in this area, and regularly harasses therapist in hopes of beating them into submission.
Busted again, idiot.
I just checked out pornhelps twitter account and discovered a few things:
Pornhelps is a neuroscientist (15 years studying as neuroscientist. Same as Prause?) https://twitter.com/pornhelps/status/768836072990056448
Here's Pornhelps attacking neuroscientist Mateusz Gola in the comments section under his new study which support the porn addiction model - http://biorxiv.org/content/early/2016/06/08/057083#comment-2733252037
Here's Pornhelps attacking reddit/nofap founder Alexander Rhodes and Time editor Belinda Luscombe - https://twitter.com/pornhelps/status/756504811252494336
Dr. Prause joins in calling Alexander a liar - https://twitter.com/NicoleRPrause/status/756515304004616192
Dr. Prause joins in calling Belinda Luscombe a liar - https://twitter.com/NicoleRPrause/status/756515304004616192
And the studies on the front page of pornhelps.com appear to be same studies Dr. Prause always cites in her talks and interviews.
Draw your own conclusions as to who pornhelps really is.....
You do realize there is a list where all of that information is circulated that you claim traces back. It is widely known, amongst no-insane stalkers.
I agree with previous posters. This is clearly Gary Wilson copy+pasting once again from his own website caught in his lonely web of meaningless life with nothing to do except troll therapists online all day.
Gary Wilson, you are an idiot, your website is a complete fraud, and your life is meaningless.
My friend asked me to look at this thread and I have to agree. Gary Wilson, you are a stalker and you need to seek mental health care immediately. Show a trusted friend, if you have any, your posts. Someone who is not a conspiracy theorist and doesn't have a dog in the porn fight. This is not the normal behavior of an adult, even a passionate adult. You have a serious mental problem and need to see someone.
There are dozens of people who know you lurk and paste from your website in these forums. Just because someone now has proof should scare you, instead you start inventing conspiracies from your obsessions. This truly looks psychotic and I hope you will get the help you clearly need.
All the commenters here are one person. That one person has a very long history of harassing many people she disagrees with. See this page for her many targets: including researchers, medical doctors, therapists, psychologists, former colleagues, a UK charity, men in recovery, a TIME magazine editor, and the head of a scientific journal. http://www.yourbrainonporn.com/nicole-prauses-pdf-her-span-lab-website
For example, it's documented in emails between TIME magazine fact checkers and Gabe Deem, that Dr. Prause told TIME that Gabe Deem had impersonated a medical doctor to write the above letter to the editor of an academic journal critiquing a paper the journal had published by Prause & Pfaus:
http://yourbrainonporn.com/nicole-prauses-pdf-her-span-lab-website#gabetime
Another example - http://yourbrainonporn.com/nicole-prauses-pdf-her-span-lab-website#rory
Prause attacked and libeled former UCLA colleague Rory Reid PhD in a document she placed on AmazonAWS. This same attacked and same documents & screenshots were placed anonymous on porn recovery forums 2 years earlier! That means that Prause was using forums to harass her colleague while she was still at UCLA. Bottom line - Rory Reid is still at UCLA, Prause isn't.
Throughout this page are multiple documented incidents of a person posting on multiple porn recovery forums, posting information that only Dr. Prause would know about or care about.
"All the commenters here are one person."
Gary Wilson, the mentally ill person who cannot let his trolling stop. You have embarrassed yourself in every one of those links. This is a post about AASECT, which Prause said she doesn't even belong to, and you have exhibited your clear mental illness by being unable to stop pretending somebody is her.
You do realize that hundreds of people now know this is you Gary Wilson? That your website is pure fabrication from beginning to end, showing you have an agenda and know nothing about what you are writing about?
ANd you just cannot resist can you. Show us how sick you are. Show us you cannot let this go. Go ahead, your troll, post your next conspiracy theory about women. You must have been rejected an awful lot to hate women this much.
I clicked on the links and the pornhelps twitter account no longer exists. What are they hiding?
Anonymous wrote:I clicked on the links and the pornhelps twitter account no longer exists. What are they hiding?
Wow, conspiracy theory much? Straight through Christmas Day? Classic Gary Wilson mental illness.
I just Googled this and this troll has posted this exact same thing 29 times online! Stalker much?!
Let's examine your claims, Dr. Prause:
"1. Still fails to provide any credentials."
But I did provide 80 peer-reviewed studies and 10 reviews of the literature. You have provided no studies to support the AASECT position.
"2. Claims conspiracy, they know better than the experts because of a secret website they created"
I did not such thing, as everyone can see.
"3. Uses denigrating language to try to provoke and insult rather than problem-solve."
Nope again. As everyone can see
"4. Still refuses to acknowledge any positive aspects of sex films (logic error: black or white thinking)"
Nope again. That wasn't part of our back and forth, was it?
This exchange has been quite revealing.
“As everyone can see” is right: I’m no Dr, but if this is how Dr Prause conducts her public discussions, it’s hard to see her as insightful.
It's amazing she sticks with it with all these trolls about! Luckily they don't reach us as easily across the pond. My 3 year old niece was making fun of this TEDx talk and I said "yes, he is funny!" because that's the only way to read it. Bizarre people.
spending her time posting in the comments sections under blog posts? Could you imagine Voon or Simone Kuhn of the Max Planck institute railing against organizations (such as SASH or IITAP) in the comments section or on their twitter accounts? Could you imagine Voon or Kuhn claiming that their single study "proved" that porn addiction existed, and no other studies needed to be done?
Can you imagine Gary Wilson ever attacking Voon? Maybe the problem is the mentally ill, obsessed stalker who attacks every therapist, educator, and scientist who writes anything positive about porn. THAT is psychotic.
And Wilson seems unaware that his trolling has been posted all over listservs he is not on. We all know Gary Wilson is a sick troll.
German psychologists Peter Borkenau and Daniel Leising argue in a recent article that using “raw” data from personality assessments doesn’t lead to good predictions of compatibility. This is because people tend to be close to the average on most of personality traits, so we all resemble each other
bursatogel
1) Response to AASECT Position Statement https://www.iitap.com/blog/2016/12/14/response-to-aasect-position-statement/
2) Denial of Sex Addiction Hurts Our Clients http://namasteadvice.com/denial-of-sex-addiction-hurts-our-clients/
3) How does the AASECT discounting of Sex & Porn Addiction affect the 12-step community?
http://www.doctoddlove.com/todd-love-blog/how-aasect-sex-addiction-denial-impacts-12step-recovery-programs
4) Decoding AASECT's "Position on Sex Addiction" http://www.pornhelp.org/blog/decoding-aasects-position-on-sex-addiction
This is great and really informative.. I'll keep following your web and your article, thanks for sharing :)
togel singapura
The poorly trained quacks from Patrick Carnes fringe group have merely changed the name of "sexual addiction" to "out of control sexual behavior." The concept still has zero construct validity and has been repeatedly rejected by the paraphilia work group of the American Psychiatric Community. Stay away from these poorly trained quacks and if you are experiencing "hypersexual behavior," go to a practitioner trained in medicine.
Get the help you need from a therapist near you–a FREE service from Psychology Today.