Mental Rebooting: "Your Brain on Porn"...

I'm confused because this article seems to talk about porn consumption, sexual pleasure, masturbation, male orgasm, and ejaculation as if they are all the same thing. Depending on one's sex and lifestyle, these things might coincide; but it's worth distinguishing them when you're considering changing your behavior.

I'm skeptical that this is really about superstimuli per se, mostly based on the replacements you offer.

Meditation and exercise are very much addictive and often superstimuli themselves. Their (non-fun) benefits are questionable.

Also, I don't see what purpose karezza serves. Do you mean to masturbate without orgasm, or to use it as a sex variant? The first seems to me like just replacing one fetish with another, and the other seems like a really bad idea for a replacement because it doesn't supply the same thing as porn.

I'm also skeptical about the whole approach. I've experimented with longer abstinence from superstimuli myself, but I can't say it did me any good. It didn't change the need for stimulation, and so I just drifted from one "addiction" into another. I only made me miserable during the transition, but had no long-term effects. I'm way happier by embracing superstimuli. I now take care to have enough of them to limit the need for escalation.

Maybe I'm overly cynical here, but this seems to me more like a moralistic judgment (these stimuli are evil, but those are fine). It certainly was for me.

For me, any superstimulus is a bad superstimulus

It would be helpful if you were to define the word superstimulus (in the sense of "rationalist taboo").

I would define a human superstimulus as something that resembles a stimulus that existed in the human EEA - i.e. a distinct object or phenomenon that elicits a distinct evolved response in (a region of) the human mind - but which is much greater in extent that the stimulus as it existed in the EEA, and which brings about a response in the human mind that is commensurately great, such that the response would very probably have been maladaptive in the EEA (and may be harmful to some of an individual human's personal interests in the present day too).

Under this definition, pornography of whatever kind is certainly a superstimulus; for example, extremely few humans in the EEA would have seen anywhere near the number of many females "presenting" that a porn-addict is liable to see. Note however that you didn't define "pornography" either - given the wide variety of preferences in pornography that exist, that is a serious omission. You mention "non-fetishistic sexual pleasure", but plenty of porn is perfectly normal in a sense (remember that not all pornographic or quasi-pornographic material on the internet is of commercial origin).

Also note that under my definition, a vast range of socially acceptable and normal human experiences are also superstimuli. Nightclubs are superstimuli - never mind the music, just the number of girls of fertile age in one place. Walking on a city street is a superstimulus - seeing and walking past a stranger is surely a stimulus in the EEA. Driving a car is a superstimulus, given that fast motion is a stimulus. Und so weiter. This sheds an unfortunate light on your idea that all superstimuli are bad (rather than merely having good and bad sides) - unless your definition of superstimulus is substantially different to mine.

Finally, what about men who are genuinely hopeless with or repulsive to women? For them, in general does not "greater motivation" imply merely greater frustration?

You say "porn" like it's a bad thing.

There are some useful bits on that site, but it seems too one-sided (with the "porn is addictive and bad" bottom line already written) to be taken seriously. Neither of the authors has any formal training in neuroscience or psychology, which does not help their case, either.

It could be worth reflecting on what would actually count as a superstimulus; and then asking if one would benefit from a long hiatus from that stimulus.

I think my primary objection to this idea is that I see no reason why you wouldn't just skip the first step. In general, for things you do on a regular basis, it's worth asking what would happen if you stopped for a while.

Edit: but also, having done so, it's worth skipping the third step and not calling yourself "mentally rebooted". It's kind of obnoxious.

What about the opposite?

Kill of your taste buds with dangerous chilli and concentrated artificial sweeteners until cake and celery taste the same. Squick yourself out until your libido crawls into a corner to never ever come out again. Learn to love a genre of music that sounds just like tinnitus, then turn the volume up a lot. Oversaturate your brain with information until it just flows through you. Read about the most horrifying atrocities in history until your heart turns to stone.

Some of these are obviously silly. But less extreme versions of a similar principle with a bit of common sense added have seems occasionally useful in some contexts.

For me, any superstimulus is a bad superstimulus, ...

A superstimulus is Super!

The superstimuli isn't bad in itself, the problem is the potential down regulation of response or crowding out other values in a compulsive but non net value producing way. Blocking these negative effects, or rotating superstimuli to avoid these potential effects seems to be the ideal.

So there are several issues that seem conflated to me. More specifically, should we:

1. watch porn less
2. masturbate less
3. orgasm less

While the post superficially would be advocating (1), the justifications seem more in line with (3). Actually, I can get behind all three to some extent, and for different reasons. I just think they should be seperated. For instance:

1. sex becomes more enjoyable due to resensitization to arousal cues
2. sex is much more optimal than masturbation
3. basically all of the reasons already given (energy, focus, motivation... hormonal stuff)

Has there been any rigorous testing of this? Any CRTs?

Karezza

I cannot help but be reminded of the following line:

"I do not avoid women, Mandrake, but I do deny them my essence." -- General Ripper, Dr. Strangelove, or: How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Bomb

More seriously, what would be the equivalent for women?

Porn doesn't seem like a bad thing necessarily. Just as increasing hunger makes one more likely to snap and eat an overpriced, unhealthy burger from a street vendor, increasing intervals without some kind of sexual release make one more likely to dial up exes and/or tumble into bed with other ill-advised partners.

...Or so I heard.

*

So, I did a bit of googling for counter-arguments. Here's what I found:

https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/women-who-stray/201307/your-brain-porn-its-not-addictive

http://www.dailydot.com/lifestyle/porn-addiction-healthy-research/

http://www.dailydot.com/opinion/5-reasons-you-need-watch-porn/

There were a few different studies that showed that it wasn't as bad as people thought.

Upvoting for the insight that tab explosions are superstimulating.

Also for the phrase "three girlfriends and a gimp", though suggest gender neutral rephrasing to "three gimps and a gimp".

Is anyone looking into this stuff and ADD?

If all your adaptive needs are fulfilled, what incentive is there for your body to maximize your fitness? For all it knows, you've done a great job: you are now in the dreaded Comfort Zone.

This deserves a post on it's own.