Not Your Father's Playboy: A Response

This is a response to today's article by Marnia Robinson on the Good Men Project magazine, entitled, Boys and Porn: It Ain't Your Father's 'Playboy'. Before you read this, you really should click over and read Ms. Robinson's take. But just to sum up, Ms. Robinson’s argument basically is this: Today’s pornography is more extreme than what existed a generation ago, and that’s bad for our adolescent males, because it could lead to decreased sensitivity to erotic stimuli and other forms of sexual dysfunction.

Broadly, my responses to Ms. Robinson’s article fall into three categories.

1. Is Internet porn so bad? Certainly Ms. Robinson is correct that more extreme forms of pornography are more easily available than ever before. But are we so sure that’s a bad thing? In fact, perhaps it’s kind of awesome. All over the wired world, young men and women are entering a culture where easily available imagery depicts every kind of sexual fetish imaginable. Some of it is hilarious, some of it is a little alarming, some of it is just plain strange. And dangerous—certainly, autoerotic asphyxiation qualifies as that. But before we demonize all this variety, can we also acknowledge there are advantages to it as well? Our easier-than-ever ability to access all kinds of crazy pornography also removes much of the loneliness and stigma of strangeness. Teenagers troubled by an erotic response to whatever are now able to hop online, type a few keywords into Google and discover a community out there of like-minded people, which they can then explore in a healthy, stigma-free fashion. So yes, this easy access to pornographic variety can be dangerous in extreme cases—but it can also help kids develop their sexualities in ways that are more healthy than before.

2. Does Internet porn really burn you out? Ms. Robinson attempts to use science to establish that pornography is able to “burn out” our responses to other erotic stimuli. But the scientific evidence she uses is so sketchy even she acknowledges the problems with it: “[S]cience is lagging behind in reliable research,” she writes, then says: “anecdotal evidence of Internet porn’s risks is increasing.” In my experience, yes, an element of novelty is required to trigger an erotic response. But this novelty-reward cycle exists in many other areas of our lives. Design, for example. The novelty in the stark modernism of a Mies van der Rohe-designed building like Toronto’s TD Centre or New York's Seagram Building, can trigger in me a response of sublime admiration. But that doesn’t lead me on an addictive quest for ever more extreme examples of stark modernism. In fact, it may even direct my quest for novelty in the opposite direction—toward the far more ornate Louis XIV-era Palace of Versailles, perhaps. In the same way, the novelty that triggers an erotic response from some really hardcore S-and-M might later lead someone toward the comparatively more vanilla eroticism of, say, strawberry eating.

3. History proves Ms. Robinson wrong—Broadly, Ms. Robinson’s reasoning follows the template of an argument that history has proven erroneous, generation after generation. Basically, the outlines of her argument are this: Yes, we had X, and we turned out fine. But the kind of X that exists now is different, and that difference is really going to mess up our children! Parents for generations have been recalling the stuff they did as kids, and then undergoing some truly gymnastic reasoning, to determine a way their kids’ stuff is really going to fuck them up. (Similar lines of reasoning have been employed when discussing marijuana, or violent videogames.) Often the point of this argument is: LET’S BAN IT! Ms. Robinson manages to be relatively temperate in her response. Kudos to her for that. But come on. Sure, today we have easier access to a wider variety of pornography than ever before. As the headline suggests, today’s Naughty America is not your father’s Playboy. But then again, your father’s Playboy wasn’t his father’s tittilating postcard. When Playboy came along, the ‘60s equivalent of Ms. Robinson were all up in arms about how terrible it was that young men could get erotic magazines at newsstands. And hey, those men turned out all right. And you know what? Our kids today will turn out OK, too.

Comments

[Gary Wilson]

There is no history of Internet porn, so that argument is plain silly. Internet porn is way different to our reward circuitry than magazines. What’s new is that those addicted to Internet porn experience dependence, tolerance, and withdrawal symptoms. That means their brains have undergone changes. The first misconception is that only drugs can change the reward circuitry. Untrue.
Recent studies have demonstrated that natural reinforcers, such as junk food, can alter the brain in ways similar to addictive chemicals. That unlimited access to tasty food caused a decline in dopamine receptors – a major marker for addiction. The rats got fat gotging themselves. The brain changes lasted far longer in the gorging rat than it did in rats taking cocaine. Gambling has shown similar brain changes. Our ancestors didn’t evolve with ice cream, big macs, or internet porn. A guy can encounter more hot babes (doing all sorts of wild stuff) in one hour than his ancestors did in a lifetime. A decline in D2 is a known marker of an addiction process.
Note the obvious: Porn and masturbation are far more stimulating to the reward circuitry than food – yet both food and sex are natural reinforcers - able to strongly activate the reward system.
What makes Internet porn superstimulating to our reward systems, and thus lead to chages include:
1) It affords extreme novelty – 100’s of new sexual partners per session. Novelty is highly stimulating to reward circuitry. This is what makes it so appealing, and potentially addictive. As described –it’s not Dad’s static, finite Playboy.
2) Unlike food and drugs, in which there is a limit to consumption, there are no physical limitations to Internet porn consumption - other than the need for sleep and bathroom breaks. The brain’s natural satiation mechanisms are not activated, unless one comes. Even then, the user can click to something more shocking to become aroused again
3) Unlike drugs and food, the brains natural aversion system doesn’t get activated with Internet porn. Aversion is different from satiation. One starts vomiting or getting sick when aversion is activated. Who loses interest in sexy images? Whose genes would allow that?

[Marnia Robinson]

It's surprising that someone with a history of addiction would be so unaware of the power of supranormal stimulation to create unwanted symptoms and alter brain chemistry. Contrary to your insinuations, there’s a lot of solid science behind what I've said in my article (which, by the way, was shortened by "The Good Men Project" editors).
Unfortunately for a generation of avid Internet users, the research that would confirm the phenomenon I've written about (brain changes leading to unwanted escalation and morphing of sexual tastes in scary-to-the-user directions) hasn't yet been done on their brains. But that doesn't mean illuminating research hasn't been done. Imaging technology has already revealed drug-like changes in the human brain in connection with other behavioral compulsions/addictions, including overeating. I doubt you want to argue that ever-novel and extreme Internet porn is less exciting to the human brain than cheesecake. The symptoms today's porn users are reporting strongly suggest that the same pleasure-numbing changes are going on in their brains. For a few of their stories, see: http://yourbrainonporn.com/effects-of-porn-on-the-user
A research scientist who does work on today's video gamers said this about another of my articles on this phenomenon ("Protect your Appetite for Pleasure" http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/cupids-poisoned-arrow/201010/protect-your-appetite-pleasure):
"I've read with interest your article about how sensitivity of the reward circuitry is changed over extensive stimulation of food and sex. It is compatible with what is known about psychostimulants."
Also see this article, in which a researcher discusses the common brain-pathway of drugs and Internet porn: "Internet Sex Addiction Treated With Naltrexone" http://www.mayoclinicproceedings.com/content/83/2/226.long Truly, “Playboy” is as different from Internet porn to the human brain as tic-tac-toe is from “World of Warcraft” (which has hooked users so thoroughly that they died from ignoring their own welfare).
Contrary to your assessment, my article has nothing to do with porn’s content and certainly not with moralizing. I became interested in this subject when Internet porn users began showing up at my site five years ago, desperate to quit, and unable to do so. Since my husband and I had been collecting and analyzing research on sex and the brain for some years, we realized we had an important piece of the puzzle for our visitors.
Your name-calling and mis-characterization tactics are reminiscent of today's shabby media games, and merely serve to discourage rational discussion of both the underlying science and genuine suffering.

[Chris]

Hi Marnia and Gary -- thanks for taking the time to comment on my response. I still question your reasoning.

Marnia, in your "Not Your Father's Playboy" article, you counsel parents to suggest that their adolescent boys limit themselves to masturbating once or twice a week "or even less." You criticize sex toys because "once we move to new thresholds of stimulation, we risk making our brains temporarily less sensitive to subtler, ordinary stimuli." And in other articles you've written, you suggest that couples avoid orgasm to promote sexual intimacy. Marnia, the more I learn about your work, the more it becomes evident that you're not just anti-pornography: You're anti-sex!

I question the ability of anyone with such an agenda to research objectively about a topic as laden with social baggage as pornography.

Your reasoning wreaks of bad science. You're starting with a conclusion, that Internet pornography is this "gonzo" (sic) never-before-seen scourge, and then working backward to establish the science that backs up your conclusion.

In fact, people have been getting hysterical for years about boundary-pushing forms of representation. The arguments you're making are remarkably similar to those presented by Frederick Wertham in 1954 in his seminal work about comic books, Seduction of the Innocent. Wertham called for (and got) censorship of comic books because, he said, the art form was warping young minds. More than half a century later, most of us consider comic books a relatively banal form of entertainment. And fifty years from now, we'll feel similar about this era's Internet porn.

Look, I understand you may be alarmed and appalled by some of the pornography that's out there. Heck, some of it is alarming, and some of it is appalling. But just because a few sad souls are getting addicted to the stuff doesn't justify the insane steps you suggest to counteract porn's supposed ill effects.

Please stop scaring parents. We have enough to worry about.

[Marnia Robinson]

As I don't have kids, I'm neither alarmed nor appalled by Internet porn. I am, however, very interested in empowering people to understand their vulnerability to brain-changing superstimuli, as well as their options for recovery.

You're still mis-characterizing my motives and apparently believe the picture you have painted for yourself justifies your not addressing the substance of the points above.

I did not start with any conclusions about porn. Like a good scientist, I simply observed and listened to the many porn-stricken visitors who landed at my website, which is not even about porn recovery. They are the ones who taught me about their problem and what it takes to recover - over the course of the last five years (that is, since the rise of free, streaming Internet videos).

My husband and I merely shared an analyzed, correctly, research that helps to explain what they've been experiencing and how they might go about restoring their brain's natural response to pleasure.

Incidentally, far from being anti-sex, my other work recommends very frequent and loving sex. If any of your readers would care to venture beyond your spin and make up their own minds, here are two articles:

"An Uncanny Love Potion"
http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/cupids-poisoned-arrow/201007/uncanny-love-potion

"The Lazy Way to Stay in Love"
http://yourbrainonporn.com/the-lazy-way-to-stay-in-love

[Gary Wilson]

You appear good at ad hominem attacks and making up nonsense, yet not too good at a real debate.
Comic books??
At any time, feel free to explain what is specifically "bad" about the science. I doubt that you will.
While you're at it, please inform me and your readers as to what "insane steps we are suggesting to counteract Internet pornography."
Just for the record, we are ultra-liberal in our political views, have no religious affilitaion, and strongly support free speech - including porn.
Not fear, education. People can do whatever they please.

[Chris]

Marnia, in these comments you say that Internet porn leads to "brain changes leading to unwanted escalation and morphing of sexual tastes in scary-to-the-user directions." I'll respond to two aspects in that statement.

1. On supposed brain changes... The fact that Internet porn's reward cycle may or may not affect brain chemistry is not grounds to demonize or even become all that concerned about Internet porn. Our brains are mutable objects constantly evolving and changing to keep up with external stimuli. Brain chemistry changes all the time. You both have cited food's power to change brain chemistry, for example. But we do not demonize food. Nor should we demonize Internet porn.

2. On porn causing "morphing of sexual tastes in scary-to-the-user directions"... You're inverting the phenomenon here. Porn doesn't "morph" sexual tastes. The person indulges pre-existing sexual predilections by seeking out the pornography. If those pre-existing sexual predilections are scary to the user, then it seems like the more efficient use of a counselors' resources would be to help the user develop healthy attitudes that counteract or at least deal with those fears. Your advice, in contrast, seems likely to lead to greater fears and less healthy sexuality.

[Tantra massage man]

I see sex in 2 ways. Up regulation of the nervous system and going to arousal. And down regulation of the nervous system and going to relaxation and letting go.

The up regulation way of making love depends on increasing the level of arousal and this activates the sympathetic nervous system. This accelerates the heart rate, constricts blood vessels, and raises blood pressure.

Just about any sex scene in movies and all porn illustrate this way of sex based on high stimulation. Most people make love using this style of sex. There is a goal of orgasm for both partners. The ultimate for this way of making love is to orgasm together.

All porn is based on excitement and high stimulation. In a way, you leave your body. The result is ejaculation orgasms for men and clitoris orgasms for women.

Unfortunately, I feel that watching a lot of porn restricts the erotic capacity of the body to go to pleasure with less stimulation and a more present, relaxed connected approach.

I feel that this restricts their erotic capacity for pleasure and connection if they ALWAYS make love based on high stimulation. Goal is orgasm and sex is usually over in 10 minutes.

I do not think porn is wrong but the issue is how you use it and if this style of high turn on becomes the only way.

In the relaxation approach to sex, men can learn to have multiple orgasms with no ejaculation and women can fall into g spot, cervical, blended and valley orgasms.

Many women tell me that once they had experienced these deeper powerful orgasmic places the desire for clitoris orgasms dropped right off.

I have noted time and time again that once a women does to these deeper places in sex, she will want sex a lot more as it is so fulfilling and spiritual.

The usual short porn style of sex just does not allow enough time for a woman to enter these magical places.

Also with a relaxation approach one can connect using mirror neurones to your lover.
Sex is after all about connection.

Research on mirror neurons also shows us that feeling and connecting in sex is based on down-regulation sex. Mirror neurons, many say, are what make us human.

They are the cells in the brain that fire not only when we perform a particular action but also when we watch someone else perform that same action.

Neuroscientists believe this "mirroring" is the mechanism by which we can "read" the minds of others and empathise with them.

It's how we "feel" someone's feeling or orgasms in sex. Mirror neurons allow us to connect in sex and can lead to the partners feeling the others orgasms in their body.

However, mirror neurons are not activated in up-regulation sex as this is based on increasing your level of stimulation.

Really connecting in sex seemed to be only activated in down-regulation sex. We need to be relaxed and have our attention in our bodies to feel someone and to really connect.

Porn teaches us just to be in a high turn on.

In my personal experience, once I started to explore down-regulation sex I found I opened up to my ability to powerful full body orgasmic experiences. I found that my experiences of sex totally changed, it was more about connecting and exchanging energy and love as well as orgasming for minutes, again and again. I learnt to feel my lovers orgasms in my body with out ejaculation. I can ride my lovers energy for hours.

I always suggest to my clients to explore sexuality in all its positive forms. A quicky is great now and then but a slower tantric approach will ultimately be deeper and much more fulfilling based on my personal experience and of many clients.

[Matthew W]

The main reason why people get upset over Marnia Robinson’s (and Gary Wilson’s) view on porn, masturbation and addiction is that it does not mirror their own experiences. Having read practically hundreds of similar articles, the majority of commenters seem to feel the same way. It’s really, really hard to take any of this porn addiction stuff seriously, especially as we’ve heard this story oh so many times before, most famously from Gail Dines. I view her as anti-porn, anti-sex and especially anti-male sexuality. Marnia’s take on it is slightly more palatable, but only slightly more. It’s really hard for me not to see this as dog whistling to the anti-porn, anti-sex Gail Dines cheer squad. Like Dines it seems to assume that only one type of porn is available and it’s a gateway drug to “worse stuff”. It assumes that there was little anal sex and bondage in people’s sex lives pre-internet, but remembering the magazines and videos in porn stores back prior in 1994, that’s bunkum. What Marina describes doesn’t gel with people’s experiences as evidenced by responses to her article and hundreds of similar ones. She can hold up all the “scientific proof” you like, but the greater majority of people, including generation Y, are not experiencing what she’s saying.

Gary you say “there is no history of Internet porn”, but that is absolute garbage. We’ve had more than a decade and a half of it. There was porn a plenty on the web when I first went online in 1995. Marnia you said “Contrary to your assessment, my article has nothing to do with porn’s content and certainly not with moralizing”, yet in your article you said “Increasingly, extreme porn is a problem. The more novel, startling, forbidden, or disgusting a video is, the cooler it is to pass around, and the more it excites a viewer’s brain”. Essentially you’re using the same technique as Dines, listing sex acts that many normal people perform with their partner on a regular basis such anal sex or bondage and mixing together in the same list with stuff like autoerotic asphyxiation and rape porn. Yeah, you’re blowing that dog whistle pretty hard huh?