About Porn Study Critiques
We are a group of academics, therapists, authors and bloggers who have a deep interest in today’s pornography (and masturbation) research and reviews. Other contributors include behavioral biologists with expertise in addiction who want to help, but don’t want to be associated with sex research or controversy.
On this site, we highlight the merits of various research, examine methodology, and evaluate whether conclusions appear adequately supported and titles and terminology are accurate given actual results.
If you search for research by name (upper-right menu), and there is analysis of it on the site, you will find an abstract of the research, accompanied by a list of commentaries. Some are by site members; others have merely been recommended by site members. To make it easier we created a list of all the articles on this site.
Unless comments underneath a particular post are closed, you are welcome to share your views. Please stay focused on the substance of the commentary, and avoid personal attacks and impugning anyone’s motives lest your comment be deleted. Membership at this site is by invitation.
In the real world, science sometimes works more like a fashion show. Researchers clothe plausible explanations of experimental findings in glittery statistical suits and gowns. These gussied-up hypotheses charm journal editors and attract media coverage with carefully orchestrated runway struts, never having to battle competitors.Â âBruce Bower, “Closed Thinking: Without scientific competition and open debate, much psychology research goes nowhere”
Our hope is that Porn Study Critiques serves as a place to air ideas that might normally microseismograph by the science establishment. No doubt the academic science will eventually sort out the effects of overconsumption of Internet porn. But it could take decades. In the meantime, there could be countless causalities, victims of misinformation. The wheels of scienceâespecially the print journal portion of the systemâgrind in exceedingly slow fashion, which is why we need Internet sites where ideas can be exchanged quickly without interference from the kinds of curmudgeonly censors one finds among print journal editors and reviewers.
Criticism is helpful to get at the truth. The trouble with the current journal review system is that only certain kinds of criticisms are allowed. Namely, criticisms that align with editors’ and reviewers’ prejudices. Also, exotic methodological and statistical techniques are overvalued. Porn Study Critiques is an effort to help visitors obtain a more complete understanding of today’s porn research as well as gain a multi-disciplinary perspective (medicine and psychology) often missing elsewhere in the literature.
Critiques of Questionable & Misleading Studies. Debunking Propaganda Pieces
Articles Containing Lists of Relevant Studies
- Current list of brain studies on porn users and sex addicts
- Studies linking porn use & porn addiction to sexual dysfunctions, lower arousal, and less sexual & relationship satisfaction
- (615) 566-2426
- Studies linking porn use to poorer mental-emotional health & poorer cognitive outcomes
- Studies falsify the claim that sex & porn addicts âjust have high sexual desireâ
- Research confirms sharp rise in youthful sexual dysfunctions
- Porn studies involving female subjects: Effects on arousal, sexual satisfaction, and relationships
- quasi zeal
- Experts who recognize & treat porn-induced sexual dysfunctions
Commentaries Published in Academic Journals
- Letter to the editor âPrause et al. (2015) the latest falsification of addiction predictionsâ
- The Emperor Has No Clothes: A Fractured Fairytale Posing As A Review (2014): Critique of Ley et al., 2014
- Dismantling the âgroup positionâ paper opposing porn and sex addiction (November, 2017)
Critiques of CPUI-9 Studies and âPerceived Pornography Addictionâ:
- Study invalidates the CPUI-9 as an instrument to assess either âperceived pornography addictionâ or actual pornography addiction (2017)
- (639) 623-8449
- (678) 384-8923
- Religious People Use Less Porn and Are No More Likely to Believe They Are Addicted
- Is Utah #1 in Porn Use?
Critiques of Steele et al., 2013:
- (973) 796-2291
- âHigh desireâ, or âmerelyâ an addiction? A response to Steele et al. by Donald L. Hilton, Jr., MD (2014): Critique Steele et al., 2013
- Neural Correlates of Sexual Cue Reactivity in Individuals with and without Compulsive Sexual Behavioursâ (2014): Excerpt analyzing Steele et al., 2013
- Neuroscience of Internet Pornography Addiction: A Review and Update â Excerpt critiquing Steele et al., 2013
- Conscious and Non-Conscious Measures of Emotion: Do They Vary with Frequency of Pornography Use?â â Excerpts analyzing Steele et al., 2013
- Donât Call it Hypersexuality: Why we Need the Term Sex Addiction, By Linda Hatch, PhD: Critique of Steele et al., 2013
- Misinformed Media Touts Bogus Sex Addiction Study, by Robert Weiss, LCSW & Stefanie Carnes PhD: Critique of Steele et al., 2013
- John A. Johnson on Steele et al., 2013 (And Johnson debating Nicole Prause in comments section under his PT article)
- Neurocognitive mechanisms in compulsive sexual behavior disorder (2018) â Excerpt analyzing Steele et al., 2013
Critiques of Prause et al., 2015:
- Analysis of âModulation of late positive potentials by sexual images in problem users and controls inconsistent with porn addictionâ (2015), by Liberos LLC
- 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) by Matuesz Gola PhD. (2016)
- Neurobiology of Compulsive Sexual Behavior: Emerging Science (2016): Analyzes Prause et al., 2015Â
- Is Internet Pornography Causing Sexual Dysfunctions? A Review with Clinical Reports â Excerpt analyzing Prause et al., 2015
- Conscious and Non-Conscious Measures of Emotion: Do They Vary with Frequency of Pornography Use? â Excerpts analyzing Prause et al., 2015
Porn Related Sexual Dysfunctions
- A peer-reviewed critique Prause & Pfaus, 2015 by Richard A. Isenberg MD
- (574) 555-5665
- Sticking To The Content: Response To âRed Herring: Hook, Line, and Stinkerâ, by Gabe Deem
- Comment on: âIs Pornography Use Associated with Sexual Difficulties and Dysfunctions among Younger Heterosexual Men?â by Gert Martin Hald PhD (2015)
- Critique of âCyberpornography: Time Use, Perceived Addiction, Sexual Functioning, and Sexual Satisfactionâ (2016)
- Critique of âProfiles of Cyberpornography Use and Sexual Well-Being in Adultâ (2017)
- Sexual Function in 16- to 21-Year-Olds in Britain (2016)
- Critique of âThe 2018 Revision to the Process of Care Model for Evaluation of Erectile Dysfunctionâ (2018)
- Nicole Prauseâs efforts to have Behavioral Sciences review paper (Park et al., 2016) retracted
Taylor Kohut Studies
- Perceived Effects of Pornography on the Couple Relationship: Initial Findings of Open-Ended, Participant-Informed, âBottom-Upâ Research (2016)
Assorted Academic Papers
- No Evidence of Emotion Dysregulation in âHypersexualsâ Reporting Their Emotions to a Sexual Film (2013)
- Self-perceived effects of pornography consumption (2008)
- Analysis of âDoes exposure to erotica reduce attraction and love for romantic partners in men? Independent replications of Kenrick, Gutierres, and Goldberg (1989) study 2â
- Prevalence and Characteristics of Vibrator Use by Women in the United States: Results from a Nationally Representative Study (2009)
- A Profile of Pornography Users in Australia: Findings From the Second Australian Study of Health and Relationships (2016)
- Women, Vibrators, and Shaky Sex Research: Kinsey/Trojan study on vibrators omitted loversâ top question.
Debunking Lay Articles Related to Porn-Induced Sexual Dysfunctions
- Debunking Kris Taylorâs âA Few Hard Truths about Porn and Erectile Dysfunctionâ (2017)
- Debunking a July, 2018 article by Gavin Evans: âCan Watching Too Much Porn Give You Erectile Dysfunction?â (Menâs Health)
Debunking Often-Cited Lay Articles or Talking Points
- Debunking âWhy Are We Still So Worried About WatÂÂching Porn?â (by Marty Klein, Taylor Kohut, and Nicole Prause)
- How to recognize biased articles: they cite Prause et al. 2015 (falsely claiming it debunks porn addiction), while omitting over 3 dozen neurological studies supporting porn addiction
- The bogus sex addiction âcontroversyâ and the purveyors of ignorance, by Linda Hatch, PhD
- Rethinking Ogas and Gaddamâs âA Billion Wicked Thoughtsâ (2013)
- (573) 857-0768
- Commentary on âEverything We Think We Know About Addiction Is Wrong â In a Nutshellâ (Johann Hari)
Debunking two Nicole Prause Op-edâs targeting Fight The New Drug
NCOSE 2018 Presentations
- âPeople Recognize Porn-Science Propaganda When They See Itâ by Jacob Hess â An overview of tactics employed by âastroturfersâ who deny the possible negative effects of porn use.
- Gary Wilson â Porn Research: Fact or Fiction? â Wilson exposes the truth behind 5 studies propagandists cite (all listed below) to support their claims that porn addiction doesnât exist or that porn use is largely beneficial.