I’m always wary of any mainstream media ‘fact checking’ some popular belief or story, especially when it’s the BBC. Most of us know that it’s usually an exercise in left-wing thought control, not so dissimilar to Orwell’s ‘Ministry of Truth’ correcting ‘thought crime’. However, last week the BBC Science Focus magazine took a look at the popular idea that porn is sinful and makes you go blind. Sorry, I mean the idea that porn is addictive and can shrink the brain and cause erectile dysfunction. And fair play to the BBC on this occasion – it seems that they have really taken an objective and critical look at the evidence..and found it wanting.
I wont go into the history of the ‘Porn Addiction’ myth, or the related NoFap cult. Suffice to say that it has been championed by feminists, conservatives, PUAs, and even so-called ‘sexualists’. But as the BBC highlights, look closer at the small number of studies that supposedly prove that porn causes harm, and it’s little more than junk science.
One study that inspired countless scare headlines around the world purported to show that time spent watching porn was correlated with having a smaller brain. Specifically, the male participants who watched more porn had less grey matter in a subcortical region near the front of the brain thought to be involved in processing reward.
It does sound rather worrying, but, as with all correlational studies, a large dose of caution is required. It’s just as likely that the men with a smaller reward-processing brain area were more attracted to porn (and likely other stimulating activities), than that the porn itself shrank their brains.
Another related and widely reported claim about the harmful effects of porn relate to problems with arousal, especially for men. Put starkly, the suggestion is that frequent users of porn get so used to finding sexual satisfaction on their own with the help of pornography that they can no longer get an erection in real-life sexual encounters.
Again, however, the truth appears more nuanced. At least one major study from the University of California, Los Angeles (UCLA), in the US, found that watching more porn was actually associated with more sexual desire for one’s partner.
To get a more complete picture of the effects of porn on sexual function, Rowland and his colleagues examined over 50 relevant studies.
“What we have demonstrated is simply this,” he explains, “widespread claims that pornography use during masturbation impairs sexual response during partnered sex or ruins sexual relationships are generally not supported by the research literature.”
I’ve always felt that gurus like Eivind Berge who believe they are or were ‘addicted to porn’, are simply projecting their own values (or values brainwashed into them) on to their behaviour. The Auckland-based therapist and author Dr Luke Sniewski agrees.
“In both my doctoral research and clinical experience, the emotional burden of shame and guilt often exacerbates the problem,” he says.
“When someone views their behaviour as morally wrong or feels intense guilt, it can create a negative cycle where they feel worse about themselves and use porn as a way to cope, only reinforcing the cycle.”
In fact, Grubbs and others argue that the very notion of ‘porn addiction’ is misguided and extremely unhelpful. One technical reason that it’s not straightforward to apply an addiction framework to porn use is that there’s no physiological withdrawal when a person stops using porn, as you might find with alcohol or drug addiction.
https://www.sciencefocus.com/wellbeing/porn-addiction
When people attack porn as dangerous, whether a feminist or a Christian, what they really mean is masturbation is dangerous. And the reason why masturbation has been seen as evil hasn’t ever changed. It’s an alternative to sex and reproduction. Christians obviously can’t accept that, and neither can the Sexual Trade Union.
This is interesting, although I am a bit disappointed at the last part about there being “no physiological withdrawal when a person stops using porn, as you might find with alcohol or drug addiction”.
Hard drugs like cocaine and meth are known not to cause any physiological withdrawal. You can go cold turkey, ie stop dead using those drugs and you will not get sick like you would going cold turkey on opiates or alcohol.
Instead cocaine and meths are known to cause “craving” (both while you’re using them and after you stop using them). The difference is not academic, it means you can stop cocaine and meth and not get sick. With opiates and alcohol you need to taper off or have substitution therapy once you stop.
Proponents of porn addiction could argue on the same line as I’m doing now, insisting porn causes craving even if causing no withdrawal.
This being said, even if porn is addictive, so what? An addiction that doesn’t impair your health is just a “habit”. What is our lives if not the sum total of its habits?
Good points Jack. I’m addicted to swimming, I suppose, as I do it 4 or 5 times a week and feel a bit off when I miss a few days. But it’s a healthy addiction and I enjoy it, so who cares? I don’t see any difference between somebody spending even a couple of hours a day watching porn to somebody binging on Netflix or scrolling through YouTube videos, or TikTok or whatever. People decide that watching porn is unhealthy, and from that they label anybody who does it a lot ‘addicted’. But it’s not inherently unhealthy or harmful. In fact, watching a lot of porn, at least when you’re not in a relationship or are having a dry spell, is nothing more than a sign that you have a healthy sex drive that needs an outlet.
The BBC back to their usual ways: ‘South Korean woman fined for pulling down male colleague’s trousers’
https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cgr5vnpvw71o
“A South Korean court has fined a woman for sexual misconduct after she pulled down a colleague’s trousers – and his underwear, by accident – in front of their colleagues, local media reported.
On top of the 2.8 million won ($2,100; £1,500) fine, the woman in her 50s has also been ordered to complete eight hours of sexual violence prevention education.
The incident reportedly happened last October at a restaurant kitchen in Gangwon province in the north-east.
The Chuncheon District Court’s ruling on Saturday rejected the woman’s claim that she had intended it to be a prank on her colleague, who is in his 20s.
But the court said it was taking into account the fact that she had no prior criminal record and had shown remorse. She had knelt down to apologise to the man and his parents, the judge said.
“It seems like they punished a simple prank too harshly,” says one comment under the Chosun Daily’s report of the case.”
Imagine if a man pulled down the panties of a female colleague at work and only received a fine,? The BBC would be screaming about institutionalized rape culture.
Absolutely! In the US or the UK, the woman whose garment was pulled down would get certified traumatised for life and the prankster would be declared a dangerous predator for whom no prison sentence would ever be long enough.
Why would she need to take classes on “sexual violence prevention”, if there was nothing “sexually violent” about her behavior in the first place? I believe the prank defense was rejected because the courts wanted to show how “intolerant” they are, as anyone who commits “x”, must be “y” apparently. You’re right about the double standard. If a man had done it, he would be deemed a ravenous vermin to society, so no doubt he would get locked up with the key thrown away. Oh and a “female victim “ would definitely scream and bitch about her metaphysical “sexually trauma” because status quo and victimological labeling.
I’m genuinely curious as how much of the calls sent through “sexual assault hotlines” are nothing more than unquestioned, sociogenic, victimlogical thinking establishment (aka traumatized because they are required and expected to because of how society views it)?
Good video by CityCrusher on shaming of male masturbation as demonization of male sexuality:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CWB154I1Tos
I can’t believe this guy still has a youtube channel in 2025.
Porn is getting shamed and banned worldwide, but the BBC is lauding female porn again (i.e ‘romance’ or erotic fiction). https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c75r6kq2pdwo
“A book’s “spice level” – or how much sex can be found between the covers – is also a major factor, often focused on female pleasure, power and emotional connection.”
It makes my blood literally boil. Maybe this is another ‘systematic gender disparity’ that Original Insights is referring to? If getting angry about this makes me a ‘hate movement’ in the eyes of a pedosexualist, then so be it.
I’m a man.
French hag trying to ban Pornhub: https://x.com/ClaraChappaz/status/1936114676917559777
Now they are taking aim at webcam girls: https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cx2kmgyx011o
“One afternoon, as Isabella left school for the day, someone thrust a leaflet into her hand. “Do you want to make money with your beauty?” it asked.
She says a studio looking for models seemed to be targeting teenage pupils in her area in Bogotá, Colombia’s capital.
At 17, with a two-year-old son to support, she desperately needed money, so went along to find out more.
She says when she got there, it was a sexcam studio, run by a couple in a house in a run-down neighbourhood – it had eight rooms decorated like bedrooms.
Studios range from small, low-budget operations to large businesses with individual rooms set up with lights, computers, webcams and an internet connection. Models perform sexual acts which are streamed to viewers around the world, who message them and make requests via intermediaries, also known as monitors.
The next day Isabella, whose real name we are not using, says she started work – even though it is illegal in Colombia for studios to employ webcam models under 18.”
Typical BBC/Guardian agitprop. I’m sure there’s no “Isabella”. The BBC/Guardian women’s study graduates do not venture into Bogota’s suburbs. If they did they’d risk more than getting their cameras smashed.
Note the women’s study graduate who penned this piece doesn’t question where the purported Isabella got her already two-year-old son from. Bad mistake. Didn’t the women’s study curriculum teach her she should either concoct a rape story to explain how Isabella got pregnant, or cast Isabella as an innocent virgin?
Yes, I’m sure they made it up, or else they advertised somewhere for webcam girls to come forward with such allegations and this one fancied some easy money to make stuff up. As if studios can’t get enough 18 and 19 year old girls to spread their legs on cam without risking everything by employing 17 year olds.
Age verification laws only force men to visit unregulated porn sites:
https://x.com/FSCArmy/status/1929524257534378442
“Age-verification laws don’t reduce adult content—they just push people to unregulated sites. North Carolina saw a 64% drop in traffic to compliant platforms. Tell lawmakers: This isn’t working. “
I’d say this is especially true if the age verification requires one to enter one’s credit card detail. Many are understandably reluctant to risk compromising their credit card on random websites. In turn, this is a bonanza for rogue “regulated” websites which specialize in stealing credit card details.