[_ddkb]

I know this is outing myself but this is my personal experience. I won't post anonymously in case anyone wants to contact me. I came to the realization about 2 years that I am addicted to porn. For anyone out there struggling with the same thing, it can get better and yes, it is probably having a negative influence on your life. Previously I would look about once per week but in the past 6 months, I have probably viewed only 3 or 4 times and am hopeful going forward that I will never view it again.

The difference between internet porn and porn from the past is just the abundance of new material that there is. Each time you view something new, your brain gives a hit of dopamine. In fact, porn addicts are not really addicted to porn, they're addicted to the chemical sensations that their brain provides. At the basic level, it really is not much different from any other addiction. Old, offline porn is different in that it gets stale pretty quickly. There are only so many times you can look at a magazine or video without it getting boring.

The problem with this is that your dopamine levels get out of whack. You need a higher and higher amount to feel satisfied. This is how people get roped in. This also caused normal, life things that were once enjoyable to become less so, such as hanging out with friends or programming. Life just becomes more dull. In fact, now that I have learned about this, whenever I see a post on HN about how someone has lost their interest in programming or other activities, the first thing I think of is probably this person has a porn addiction. It's not a far stretch seeing as how most of HN is young men. Having drastically reduced the amount I see, I have noticed many benefits in my life including better health and ability to focus better.

Porn, like other addictions, are also a way of masking stress and a way of distracting yourself from negative emotions. Dr. Gabor Mate has done great research linking addictions of any kind to stresses in the body. Porn gives a way to temporarily release the stress but puts the person in a vicious cycle of causing more long-term stress.

Personally, I use the recovery information from http://www.feedtherightwolf.org. It has been the only thing I have across which can really break the cycle.

As someone else pointed out the videos from http://yourbrainonporn.com/your-brain-on-porn-series will really help you understand what is going on in your brain.

[pekk]

What you are relating isn't scientific information, though it may help you in some way, it isn't necessarily accurate or helpful to others.

You have oversimplified the function of dopamine to the point that you have said something misleading. It isn't a drug. You also get a "hit" of dopamine when there is a loud, surprising noise, and any number of similar situations. Including good, natural situations. Including normal sex. This doesn't mean that "your dopamine levels get out of whack".

When you say that 'life just becomes more dull' and 'distracting yourself from negative emotions' it sounds like you are describing dysthymia or depression more than anything specific to porn. The link between monoamines (like dopamine) and depression has been known at least since MAOIs were first prescribed for depression. Of course, if you feel terrible about yourself for looking at porn once a week then that won't help any ongoing problem you have with negative self-image and depression.

Edit: in other words, I suspect (though I can't at all prove) that you have the arrow of causality reversed, and it wasn't porn causing your depression

[_ddkb]

I didn't mean to say dopamine is a drug. Yes dopamine is normal and it increases from many things. The problem is constantly altering it through activities that would not be occuring in nature. The videos I linked to on yourbrainonporn.com really explained it well for me. Maybe you could watch them and let me know what you disagree with. I maybe getting some things mixed up as I don't have a great understanding of the chemical reactions involved.

Yes, I am also aware of how I got involved with this. It goes back many years and this realization has helped me to identify reasons why I have sought this out as a solution.

As I mentioned, Dr. Gabor Mate's research and books have been helpful to me. He has worked with drug addicts in Vancouver and has, in many cases, linked addiction to ongoing stress in a person's life especially when they are young. In a way of dealing with the stress, the person turns to an addictive substance which provides a temporary relief which the person can get hooked on quite easily.

[true_religion]

I've heard this theory before, but I feel as if were it true we would already have a long series of old wives tales of how the 'studs' are always morose, and its better for newly weds to abstain on occasion rather than follow their flush desires.

The orgasms gotten through pornography aren't any stronger than those found 'in nature'---this isn't heroine.

[jjhicks]

QUOTE -The orgasms gotten through pornography aren't any stronger than those found 'in nature'---this isn't heroine.

You have missed the entire point.

Orgasm lasts a few seconds.

Porn addiction is not about orgasms its about porn. The viewing, searching, clicking from tab to tab on tube sites. Starting in early adolescence, training ones brain to need a certain level of stimulation. For some - hours a day.

Dopamine responds to novelty and anticipation, and is elevated to near orgasmic levels during sexual excitement.

Read the start here article on that site, and you will see that all addictions involve the same fundamental brain changes which are caused by a specific set of genes, all activated by the accumulation one molecule deltafosb. This is indisputable.

You will also see about 300 links to citations on that one page.

[illuminate]

"Porn addiction is not about orgasms its about porn. The viewing, searching, clicking from tab to tab on tube sites. Starting in early adolescence, training ones brain to need a certain level of stimulation. For some - hours a day."

This is more obsessive-compulsive behavior than porn-specific.

[jjhicks]

No its addiction to porn. They are not washing their hands or BS like that.

OCD and addiction each have unique set of brain changes.

Again, its already been established that both behavioral addiction ad drug addictions involves the same basic mechanisms, same brain changes: downregulation of dopamine & D2 receptors, sensitization, hypofronatlity, altered cerebral white matter, altered CRF and stress response, etc. These do not occur in OCD.

Accumulation of One molecule activates the addition process - deltafosb. This does not occur in OCD

Read the START here article on yourbrainonporn and follow all the links. You will find links to articles covering the new DSM-5 which created a behavioral addictions category and to The American Society of Addiction Medicine (ASAM). America’s top addiction experts at ASAM released their sweeping new definition of addiction which states that sexual behavior addictions exist and involve the same basic mechanisms as substance addiction.

[VigUi7vv8G2]

> Each time you view something new, your brain gives a hit of dopamine.

Oh dear god. That is not how dopamine works. Dopamine is a chemical that your brain secretes when you are trying to get something, not once you get it - so when you're hungry, for example, you'll have higher dopamine levels. Then when you eat, they go back down. The actual sensation of higher dopamine levels is stress and anxiousness - it actually doesn't feel good at all.

Here's an NYT article talking about the common misconception: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/27/science/27angier.html?_r=0

> they're addicted to the chemical sensations that their brain provides.

EVERY experience is a "chemical sensation" in the brain. Good. Bad. Whatever.

> In fact, now that I have learned about this, whenever I see a post on HN about how someone has lost their interest in programming or other activities, the first thing I think of is probably this person has a porn addiction.

What the fuck? This is the dumbest thing I've read in a while. There could be a million things that cause a loss of interest in programming. Maybe they got girlfriends or started families? Maybe they suck at it, and just realized that?

It sounds like you used to be obsessed with porn, and now you're obsessed with "porn addiction"

[haberman]

Find some decency. Your tone is appropriate for someone who is being argumentative or obstinate, not someone who has made himself vulnerable in a good faith attempt to help other people.

Your content was helpful and your points are important; you could have done the same without being mean.

[jxi]

Just because you made yourself vulnerable doesn't mean it's OK to state incorrect/wrong things. The response to OP's posts are more valid and his tone is appropriate in expressing how wrong some of the original points were (IMHO).

[da3da]

I think people are willing to take criticism much better when it is phrased in a respectfully way, rather than an "I'm right you're wrong, here let me prove it" perspective. The OP may have been incorrect, but the best way to help him realize this isn't by yelling at him across the internet, but by politely pointing him to the science.

[mikecaron]

I agree. If OP is incorrect (I say if because I am not making a statement about his correctness) perhaps he was ignorantly incorrect. It's never good to start off with an arrogant, disrespectful tone without asking questions first. Ignorance is not the same as intentional deception.

[_ddkb]

Thanks for the article. I'm still trying to learn more about it. However, I would appreciate it if you did not judge me and wrote your response in a more polite manner.

[graue]

Thank you for sharing your personal struggle. Also, your restraint here is admirable. I regret that someone chose to reply in such a toxic manner, and am impressed you remained so polite regardless.

[VigUi7vv8G2]

I would appreciate it if people stopped making up or repeating ridiculous pseudo-scientific explanations for whatever it is they want to believe.

[rdtsc]

> I would appreciate it

Oh, you would? How dare everyone on the internet not cater to your expectations.

Someone from the community shared a story of personal struggle. They didn't hide behind a pseudonym, and it was probably a hard decision for them. They also, did in hopes it would help someone else.

They might not have used precise definitions or scientifically correct terms but they were honest and civil and even after you insulted them.

[jaggederest]

They were also clearly incorrect.

No matter how hard their struggle is, it's akin to linking vaccines to autism - no amount of personal pain overrides factual inaccuracy.

It's an extremely important part of public discourse that incorrectness be called out, in a polite way, but clearly and forcefully.

This is akin to 'balancing' a debate about evolution by having an evolutionary biologist there and a doctor of theology there. Just because there is debate does not mean that there is not a clearly correct answer.

[rdtsc]

They were incorrect on a side detail "shot of dopamine equals pleasure". That is not the main crux of the comment and latching onto that side detail and throwing "Fuck this and fuck that" around is is insulting the person and doesn't add anything to the discussion. Even after the original author politely answered and noticed the correction the insults continued with "this is not acceptable" .

> Just because there is debate does not mean that there is not a clearly correct answer.

The correct answer in this case doesn't really matter for the main point if we are talking about the dopamine. Which, from what I see is the clearly factually incorrect statement. Latching unnecessarily unto inconsequential details and derailing the conversion is also called trolling and bullying and will get the message downvoted or flagged.

[TeMPOraL]

True, but as many others wrote here, you can correct another person and still be polite about it.

One of the things I love about HN is that incorrect opinions are quickly corrected by people in the know, often with providing proper citations. However, what is quite often missing, is civility. Moreover, in this case one should be exceptionally polite, given the very personal nature of the OP's post and the courage to attach his name to his writing.

I recommend everyone (myself included) to re-read "How to Win Friends and Influence People", even if they don't think they have a problem with being polite. I keep re-reading this book and everytime I do I see something more to correct (it has already heavily influenced the way I write e-mails to people).

[Sharlin]

This is not a debate on who is right or wrong on the factual matters. Nobody is suggesting that the extremely rude person was factually wrong just because he was extremely rude. As you said, it's an extremely important part of public discourse that incorrectness be called out in a polite way. Nobody disagrees with that, but it's totally beside the point because here the problem was that the calling-out was anything but polite.

[papsosouid]

I find it interesting that you characterize his personal opinion as expecting "everyone on the internet to cater to his expectations", while demanding that he cater to your expectations of "politeness". People posting deliberately misleading pseudo-scientific nonsense do not warrant some false amiability. His nonsense needs a firm rebuttal, just as homeopathy and chakras and crystal therapy and all the other quackery does.

[MartinCron]

The expectation of politeness is a meaningful social norm, not just a personal opinion.

Also, politeness and civility isn't the same as false amiability. You can (and should) give firm rebuttals in a civil way. There's nothing false about it.

[jmathai]

I read something on Twitter the other day which reminds me of you.

"I'm a content creator. My content is criticizing other people's content."

https://twitter.com/VectorBelly/status/289489202742181888

[corwinstephen]

On a forum like Hackernews where the purpose of the entire thing is to gain knowledge and expand wisdom, it's perfectly reasonable to expect people not to post things when they have no clue what they're talking about. If the guy had posted an opinion based on fact, it would have been fair game, but this particular opinion was based on nothing more than colloquial beliefs which perpetuate fallacy.

In my opinion, he was right to criticize. If he hadn't, I'd be going around telling people about how my brain is becoming dopamine tolerant due to the bursts of it I get every time I watch porn. I'm glad I know that's not true.

[ohwp]

It's about the tone, not the critique.

What VigUi7vv8G2 is saying about dopamine might be correct but his tone is anti-social.

He could have left "Oh dear god." and "What the fuck? This is the dumbest thing I've read in a while." out of it and it would have been a perfect helpful response.

[the_cat_kittles]

No need to attack the person, especially when they responded with grace.

[sievert]

I would down-vote you if I had the karma

[nashequilibrium]

These kinds of comments prevent people expressing their feelings because of fear that every word, every technical detail will be analysed and if you are incorrect, someone will come down really hard on you and at the same time take away from the crux of the conversation. You may be right in the issues you point out but you are too harsh and not compassionate. A HN member has taken their time to share something personal, give them some leeway, be understanding and you can go one comment without trying to look smart.

[jrockway]

The problem is the amateur diagnosis, incorrect explanation of brain chemistry and the psychology of addiction, and the ridiculous conclusion. If he just told a story, fine. But that was but a tiny portion of the comment. The rest was hearsay and pseudoscience.

[rimantas]

How about stopping being compassionate to nonsense?

[kerno]

"What the fuck? This is the dumbest thing I've read in a while."

From the guidelines for this forum:

"That is an idiotic thing to say; 1 + 1 is 2, not 3" can be shortened to "1 + 1 is 2, not 3."

[MartinCron]

What the fuck? This is the dumbest thing I've read in a while.

Even if someone is incorrect, I think they deserve a more respectful and constructive response than that. We can do better than that here.

[nostrademons]

"The actual sensation of higher dopamine levels is stress and anxiousness - it actually doesn't feel good at all."

Hmm, maybe that explains why whenever I get this rush of anticipation whenever I think about playing Starcraft, but when I actually play it I just end up stressed and anxious.

[saraid216]

You realize that Starcraft is fun largely because it stresses you out and makes you anxious, right? Same with, say, tennis. If you're not stressed and anxious, it's because you're not being challenged by your opponent.

The rush of fiero when you kick ass, or the amazement when you lose, washes over this at the end and gives you an emotional exclamation point to remember for the next time you think about playing: you're anticipating the end of the game.

[CKKim]

"I am addicted to porn"..."I would look about once per week"

It seems odd to me that being addicted to porn would go with only looking "about once per week". I think I understand how this could still be technically an addiction, but compared to other addictions and - I imagine - especially porn addictions, it seems rather bizarre. Certainly if pornography was only being consumed once a week then the rate of let's call it "stimulation inflation" can't have been that high, or can it? Could you elaborate?

[_ddkb]

The definition of addiction I heard that I agree with was something like "An activity that causes an overall negative effect on your life that you do not have control over."

This definitely fit with my experience. It was definitely a cycle for me. Alcoholics do not have to have a drink every day to be an alcoholic. In fact, one of the points of the AA program that people need to learn is they are always an alcoholic.

In my experience, I would just feel an uncontrollable urge which would lead me to view porn. Once I started, I would be in a trance-like state which is common from other experience I have read about. What kind of really hit home is hearing a non-addict say something like he would view porn for 15-20 minutes and then it would get boring and he would stop. That is the complete opposite of me, and other addicts. Once we start, it becomes almost impossible to stop until we are completely "drunk." In my experience, I would notice that I would put so much stress on my body, that it would really take me about a week to recover and feel normal, and then the cycle would start again.

[Falling3]

There are many criticism towards the AA program... just because Bill Wilson think you're always an alcoholic does not make it so.

[_ddkb]

I understand the 12 step programs are not perfect. No program is perfect. I don't understand your point. Are you trying to say that I'm not addicted? It took me many years to realise that this is an addiction for me but it did help me to admit that. I do believe in that part of the program that it needs to be considered a problem before a person can work on improving it.

Edit: I can't respond to your comment below but thanks for your follow up.

[Falling3]

I'm not making any judgements on your own addictions - I'd never be that presumptuous. To be honest, I've only begun to look into AA's culture and theories. I feel it's an understatement to say that it's not perfect. Half of the steps specifically mention god - that does not sound like me like a necessary (or even helpful) part of treatment for alcoholism. People have also pointed out similarities between them and cults (which I have begun to see in the members that I know).

I don't know how I feel yet about the idea that someone is always an addict. I do know the fact that AA believes and teaches it is absolutely no reason to consider it to be factual.

[Falling3]

>Most of what you're saying about AA is false. 4 of the 12 steps mention God. And if you look deeper into the material, God is in reference to a Higher Power or "Power greater than ourselves."

>Some examples of a Higher Power can include: a sponsor, the group in general, a (big G or little g) god, a door knob. The principle is about believing in something greater than yourself.

No, it is not. Four of the steps use the word use the word "God", 1 uses only the word "Him" (and that obviously refers to the same thing), and 1 uses the word "Power" (notice the upper case).

The claim that these are intended to be anything "greater" than yourself such as a sponsor or the group clearly is not what is intended (and, from what I have heard, not what is taught). I don't know what the hell your door knob comment is about - I assume it was for comic effect.

http://www.aa.org/en_pdfs/smf-121_en.pdf Read the steps. A sponsor is not going to remove our shortcoming or character defects. We don't pray to the group so that we might know their will. You're either ignorant of the actual teachings or being extremely disingenuous.

[gavingmiller]

Most of what you're saying about AA is false. 4 of the 12 steps mention God. And if you look deeper into the material, God is in reference to a Higher Power or "Power greater than ourselves."

Some examples of a Higher Power can include: a sponsor, the group in general, a (big G or little g) god, a door knob. The principle is about believing in something greater than yourself.

edit: AA has its roots in Christianity, however being in AA doesn't mean you have to be a Christian or a theist.

[BSousa]

I'm reading the Power of Habit and the author mentions AA. According to the theory of the book, for habits (drinking) to change permanently, people have to believe in something. According to the author, that ingrained belief of AA is what makes it work for so many people, but as mentioned, you can ignore god in the steps and replace it with something else (family, sponsor, local communities, etc).

[gavingmiller]

Typically someone in AA will say that they're a recovering alcoholic vs an alcoholic. There is a distinct difference.

[CKKim]

Ah, got it. Thanks very much for the explanation. The alcohol analogy makes it lucid. When it comes to pornography I'm definitely a "glass of red wine with dinner from time to time" kind of person (TMI?), so it was out of my frame of reference to know what kind of behaviour you were describing.

"I would notice that I would put so much stress on my body, that it would really take me about a week to recover and feel normal, and then the cycle would start again" sounds, well, pretty wild and probably jolly good fun to be honest, but I can see how that could be problematic as a regular and difficult-to-resist habit rearing its head every week or so.

[Evbn]

It would be really sweet if you meant that as a nice meal, a glass of wine, a laptop, and a towel.

[CKKim]

Needless to say I didn't mean it that way, but the imagery in your comment did make me laugh a lot on an otherwise depressingly rainy Monday morning with three meetings scheduled for the afternoon that I'm really not looking forward to leading. Thank you! :)

[jdietrich]

There's no clear evidence that AA works:

http://summaries.cochrane.org/CD005032/alcoholics-anonymous-....

[mamoswined]

That is not the definition of addiction (actually in their working, dependence) as defined by the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (D.S.M.). And that's just PART of the AA definition too. I would also note that the DSM has sex addiction under its broad draft "behavioral addictions" because there is not enough research on it.

I would encourage you to see a psychologist and possibly get a referral for a psychiatrist to get a real diagnosis. The deceptive thing about these mangled pop-sci porn addiction tropes is that they try to get people with these problems to believe that their issues are a normal reaction to the evils of pornography (and if you did deeper Maria and Gary in general believe this about orgasms, even during sex), when it reality they could be a symptom of a host of psychological issues and disorders.

If it truly is an addiction, you should be not self-treating it on the internet.

[atesti]

I'd guess that other people watch porn exactly as long as they get "excited" enough to do something I don't describe here. After this is "done", there is no need to watch more of it for at least the length of the refractory period, but better for longer.

Why would one continue to watch it afterwards? One can't be addicted to porn under my definition, but just to doing "that". This can of course be addictive and negatively affect one's life. Also the stimulus surely can get weaker and weaker thus leading to "harder" porn each time which looks like a bad cycle

[mamoswined]

I'm kind of shocked no one seems to have researched the authors of Your Brain on Porn. While I think their stuff is interesting, I am very skeptical, especially considering their past work and their general views on sexuality. I read their Cupid's Poison Arrow book and it's not just porn they think is bad for you, it's orgasm in general. Their book teachers a method of orgasm-free sex and sexuality that is supposed to improve the longevity of your relationship. I don't really think Marnia or Gary have much qualifications in the science of sex or addiction, but they wrap up their arguments in scientific-sounding language. I am familiar with such things because I grew up Evangelical and they used the same type of arguments for their views on sexuality.

For a better perspective on issues relating to having an addictive personality, I recommend The Compass of Pleasure by neuroscientist David J. Linden for understanding reward-theory that dominates the psychology research now.

I don't doubt that some people have legitimate problems worsened by pornography use, but I would say that they would benefit highly from seeing a therapist rather than following some of these more shaky theories. I've known young men who are thinking they have issues with dopamine, when in reality many of them have issues with shame, anxiety, and communication. I do believe porn addicts exist, but I think it is worth getting diagnosed by a professional who can rule out other causes.

[troutwine]

> I am addicted to porn. ... I would look about once per week...

I don't understand: this seems incongruous. Watching pornography once a week doesn't come across as an uncontrolled, impulse behaviour. How does one suffer from an addiction and satisfy it but once a week?

Do forgive me if I come across as doubting your word. That is not my intention in the least.

[jrockway]

He said he enjoyed it a lot when he did it, therefore it's an addiction.

This is America: if you like something, it's probably bad for you.

(Less sarcastically: I remember reading that addicts don't enjoy their addiction anymore; they do it because they have to keep doing it. Kind of like me and "someone is wrong on the Internet".)

[_ddkb]

That is not what I meant. I am not against porn. If it is good for you then that is fine. It is not good for me and just because you may not have a problem with something doesn't mean other people do not. I have no problem drinking a beer but I understand that some people do have a problem drinking.

> I remember reading that addicts don't enjoy their addiction anymore; they do it because they have to keep doing it.

Yes, I can relate to this. At the beginning it may not have been an addiction but it did morph into one over several years.

[doyoulikeworms]

Ah...

> I am addicted to porn. ... I would look about once per week...

Might as well have said:

> I am addicted to heroin. ... I would shoot up about once per week...

I guess the point is simply that you did something that harmed your life, but you couldn't stop, eh?

It's strange that the word "addict" conjured up so many images of drugs and alcohol that I unconsciously threw the proper definition of the term right out the window.

[kahawe]

>He said he enjoyed it a lot when he did it, therefore it's an addiction.

hmmmm no. It is an addiction if you cannot do WITHOUT it and you cannot stop doing/taking it; and you feel terrible one way or the other without it and the only release is having/taking it. And when you start typical toxic behaviors like making excuses "one last time" and the likes.

Just because you enjoy something a lot doesn't make it an addiction. From all mattm said, he probably isn't addicted but put the label "addiction" on some other thing he is suffering from.

[narag]

Your sarcasm detector had just had a glitch.

[rahoulb]

Years ago I read the Allen Carr "Easy way to give up smoking" book and managed to change from having 30/day to 3 on a Sunday evening in the pub.

But if I didn't get to the pub on Sunday evening it ate me up inside - I NEEDED those 3 cigarettes and I couldn't cope without them.

It wasn't the quantity, it was how I dealt with being denied that was the issue.

[_ddkb]

I responded to the same question above.

[TeMPOraL]

Matt, I salute you for the courage to write this under your real name, and thank you for sharing your experience.

> The difference between internet porn and porn from the past is just the abundance of new material that there is. (...) At the basic level, it really is not much different from any other addiction. Old, offline porn is different in that it gets stale pretty quickly. There are only so many times you can look at a magazine or video without it getting boring.

I think this is the key point (and dopamine-related discussions only distract from it). I also came to the realization that the big part of the problem is the same thing that keeps many addicted to Hacker News or Reddit - it's that whenever you look, there's always fresh new content, so it never gets boring.

[MartinCron]

More brave than the author of the article, who hid behind a pseudonym.

[tinco]

He is more reckless than the author of the article. It does not benefit anyone that he revealed his identity, and it might affect him negatively.

Commendations should be made for his acknowledgement of the addiction, and making it public so others might realize too. I don't think identity has anything to do with this.

[MartinCron]

It does not benefit anyone that he revealed his identity

Actually, it might. From the original comment: "I won't post anonymously in case anyone wants to contact me" which means that if someone is struggling with a similar addiction, or wants to learn more about it, they can contact him and benefit from the additional information or context.

It might impact him negatively, but it might help others. That's what I mean by saying he's brave.

[illuminate]

http://thehumanist.org/july-august-2012/you%E2%80%99re-addic...

This is probably worth your read. Even if you disagree, your "addiction" is being shoehorned into the disease model and the unhealthy patterns don't necessarily meet the same standard.

[tomjen3]

How did you end up on the conclusion that you were addicted, as opposed to a user of, porn?

[agumonkey]

A negative side of accelerating returns. The contrast between the difficulty in the past and the overwhelming ease of nowadays is astonishing.