Personal question, not sure what to name this thread.

Actually, I think this response (ie lack of response) is a sign of psychological health.

This is a great opportunity to stop masturbation and to build up your spiritual muscles to keep sex within marriage, which is the only place where The Architect intended it to be.

We are a body-spirit unity, and so engaging in actions which sever the integrity between your inflamed imagination and the actual action of sex (which is intended to be real, not fantasy as in masturbation) introduces a dysfunction that can lead to muted response when dealing with a real as opposed to fantasy encounter.

Of course I know this view is not popular, especially amongst compulsive masturbators and porn-consumers, and the usual suspects will be unable to resist the temptation to get on their high horses and shout me down. But it is the received view of the best of our culture (what's left of it). Also, pscyhologists in clinical practice are finding that porn-induced ED is a growing problem in young men (here, here, here, and here for example).
 
Arthur said:
Actually, I think this response (ie lack of response) is a sign of psychological health.

This is a great opportunity to stop masturbation and to build up your spiritual muscles to keep sex within marriage, which is the only place where The Architect intended it to be.

We are a body-spirit unity, and so engaging in actions which sever the integrity between your inflamed imagination and the actual action of sex (which is intended to be real, not fantasy as in masturbation) introduces a dysfunction that can lead to muted response when dealing with a real as opposed to fantasy encounter.

Of course I know this view is not popular, especially amongst compulsive masturbators and porn-consumers, and the usual suspects will be unable to resist the temptation to get on their high horses and shout me down. But it is the received view of the best of our culture (what's left of it). Also, pscyhologists in clinical practice are finding that porn-induced ED is a growing problem in young men (here, here, here, and here for example).
Click to expand...

The majority of young men masturbate to porn. I'm sure you'll find that the majority of young men who never suffer from erectile dysfunction masturbate to porn as well. The fact that porn is so pervasive means you could find a correlation between porn use and anything you cared to mention.

I suppose it does seem like an obvious conclussion to jump to if you already assume that increased consumption of porn must be detrimental, but I see no suggestion that any of these "experts" have made even the slightest effort to test or verify their conclussions. There isn't even the barest reference to an alternative theory. All halmarks of agenda driven psuedo-science, which incidently is what psychology is.
 
Nick333 said:
I see no suggestion that any of these "experts" have made even the slightest effort to test or verify their conclussions. There isn't even the barest reference to an alternative theory.
Click to expand...
The key phrase is "I see". This is more a comment about your vision than the world out there, as you well know. The serious psych literature has numerous clinical case studies and theoretical articles, but it's not common practice to publish them in the general press and blogs.


Nick333 said:
All halmarks of agenda driven psuedo-science, which incidently is what psychology is.
Click to expand...
Well, there we have it - thanks for, er, clarifying. Naturally no scholarly article on a "pseudo-science" like psychology will ever convince you. Case closed.

(By the way, what credentials are you offering that make you such on authority on pseudo-sciences? Care to cite any articles by credentialed scholars to back up your assertion, or is this just another opinion?)
 
Last edited:
its a mental thing bro. think about it, and you will find the answer. Tell yourself, ok Im gonna shag her tonight... What is the first thing that you worried about?

/off topic

ag after the behind-the-scenes short vid I saw many many many years ago I lost all interest in pron.

the way the chicks get treated is really ridiculously bad... its sad really. And you know that oke with the 10" rock hard graam who was banging away for like 30 min solid?? They cut out the parts where he jizzes like 6 times, gives his pump a go, boxes and boxes of pills to keep it going, chicks passed out (drugged?), PC's with the software to put all the shorter sessions together to make it one long movie...

I guess if you dont bang non-stop for 30min then you not a man :erm:

:D
 
Arthur said:
The key phrase is "I see". This is more a comment about your vision than the world out there, as you well know. The serious psych literature has numerous clinical case studies and theoretical articles, but it's not common practice to publish them in the general press and blogs.
Click to expand...

I'm sorry but that's just crap. There are plenty of online journals and proffesionally run sites that would at the very least site these studies if they existed. The fact that they don't, suggests that they do not exist. The fact is if they existed the anti-porn brigade would be siting them constantly instead of correlatory evidence from survey's that basically amount to anecdotal evidence. No mention is made anywhere about how Carlo Forestas finding that 70% of young men suffering from ED are heavy porn users varies from the population at large. The fact is when there is evidence for something the proponents generally make it as visibleas possible, to suggest otherwise is naive and, well frankly, stupid. I mean even the evidence for the existence of the evidence is anecdotal ffs. Please tell me you can at least see the humor in that?


Well, there we have it - thanks for, er, clarifying. Naturally no scholarly article on a "pseudo-science" like psychology will ever convince you. Case closed.

(By the way, what credentials are you offering that make you such on authority on pseudo-sciences? Care to cite any articles by credentialed scholars to back up your assertion, or is this just another opinion?)
Click to expand...

Does it actually have any bearing on the "evidence" at hand? So it's my opinion that psychology is pseudo-science? Your supposed evidence only lends credence to that. Claiming that heavy porn use diminishes the normal sexual response because of anecdotal evidence is not science.
 
Logic on a very tentative premise. Once you've eliminated all other possibillities on a case to case basis then you get to talk about logic.
 
This dude loves making love to his hand more than he does making love to woman... And you guys argue about science?

Seriously?!?!?!

@OP.
Choke the chicken less and slap ass more. I'm pretty sure it should sort itself out.

Maybe the problem is the convenience? You can get it on and done with no problem or hassles. Where as slapping ass takes a little more effort and allot more time?
I remember that kinda problem when I changed masturbating technics when I was younger. The other was was allot easier and less effort. But the second version produced a better result :D
 
Nick333 said:
The usual and expected obfuscation. Logic that is not fully informed is not science.
Click to expand...
Obfuscation? Nick333, you are digging a deeper hole, I fear. Are you aware of the discipline of the sciences? Categories?

Anyway, back to topic.

Repeated behaviour/acting-out that powerfully and repeatedly associates sexual stimulation with fantasy or intangible images leads ineluctably to a distortion in normal erotic stimulation in real tangible situations. The unreal fantasy-stimulation association reinforces a cycle that weakens normal psycho-erotic patterning. This phenomenon of stimulation-response-behaviour association has been extensively researched. It's called conditioning. Simple, really.

(But of course we never think about sex. We dream about it, obsess about it, foam and froth about it. But this is not thinking. There isn't a subject where there's less light and more heat. And don't think we're any more enlightened than our forebears - just look at the self-help and how-to books and advice columns ... people with working pipes don't buy plumbng books. Our age is more ignorant about sex than just about anything else.)

At some point you've got to man up and face the truth that wanking to a fantasy is soo unsatisfactory, so stupid. It comes from weakness, not strength. Because it is damaging it is wrong. The damage is psychological, at various levels. Damage can even be physical. It is most certainly spiritually destructive.

Time to stop. It's a hard battle. But it'll make a man of you.
 
Last edited:
Arthur said:
Obfuscation? Nick333, you are digging a deeper hole, I fear. Are you aware of the discipline of the sciences? Categories?
Click to expand...

LMAO more obfuscation (although I'm beginning to suspect it's more a case of your own obfuscation than an intentional thing).

Science (from Latin scientia, meaning "knowledge") is a systematic enterprise that builds and organizes knowledge in the form of testable explanations and predictions about the universe.[1] An older and closely related meaning still in use today is that found for example in Aristotle, whereby "science" refers to the body of reliable knowledge itself, of the type that can be logically and rationally explained (see "History and philosophy" section below).[2] Since classical antiquity science as a type of knowledge was closely linked to philosophy. In the early modern era the two words, "science" and "philosophy", were sometimes used interchangeably in the English language. By the 17th century, "natural philosophy" (which is today called "natural science") had begun to be considered separately from "philosophy" in general.[3] However, "science" continued to be used in a broad sense denoting reliable knowledge about a topic, in the same way it is still used in modern terms such as library science or political science.
Click to expand...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Science

So yes logic and philosophy are "Sciences" in the classical sense but are not science or scientific in the modern sense which is why we don't refer to historians and philosophers as scientists. In the olden, pre-scientific method days, science and philosophy were more or less synonymous.

Logic has it's place in the scientific method but is not scientific in and of itself. I'm not actually sure if you're unaware of this or you choose to ignore it for the sake of adding weight to your opinion.
 
Bonus thought for every time you wank: by going through with this solitary auto-erotic act I am damaging my sexuality and my soul. Just this one time more further reinforces my increasing disconnection from real sex, real bodies and real love and inevitably makes it that much more difficult to claw my way back to health. Stop! Stop!! Stop!!! Go for a run/walk/shower - whatever sublimates. No more porn. Ever.

Bonus image for every time you wank: "I place myself at the foot of the Cross and gaze on that scourged and tortured body. He's in my place. Every pull of my hand scourges Him further. He takes it like a Man because He loves me."

Bonus: Steps to healing. Porn No More.
 
Arthur said:
Bonus image for every time you wank: "I place myself at the foot of the Cross and gaze on that scourged and tortured body. He's in my place. Every pull of my hand scourges Him further. He takes it like a Man because He loves me."

Bonus: Steps to healing. Porn No More.
Click to expand...

shouldn't this be in some religious/christain thread? sorry Arthur but your preaching (?) offends me far more than a bit of porn does.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top
Sign up to the MyBroadband newsletter
X