Why is porn...

Yes, you're right. I don't personally feel disgust.


You're right on this too of course; I know I would not personally immediately find another video stimulating after finishing with one. I expect there exists some kind of 1.balance between one's recovery time and a kick-in of the Coolidge effect. However, people who have become addicted to PMO (pornography, masturbation, orgasm) do often report masturbating repeatedly to various stimuli (2.to the detriment of their penis).

1. I agree.

2. This seems rather obvious even though I never really asked myself this. Do PMO addicts' penises get so much 'love' that they get damaged? I can't even think of the levels of insanity for that to happen lol

But it does not explain OP feeling horny and sexually aroused with porn and 'giving himself some love' and then, not only lacking sexual arousal when watching porn but also feeling disgusted by porn. This is what you should really tackle.

Definitely. I had those issues. And people with healthy sexual relationships who watch porn don't (to such a large extent, if at all).

Masturbation can be beneficial. Not porn. Occasional use won't do any harm though I still can't see how it can be justified as beneficial!

Consider that most guys just aren't getting laid regularly. They don't know about their issues. The effects of chronic porn use aren't an issue until you find out they are as the change is so gradual.

The anecdotal evidence is astounding - unfortunate that more empirical studies haven't been done on this yet!

http://www.cracked.com/article_15725_the-10-steps-to-porn-addiction-where-are-you.html is quite funny and not that far out.

Just to reiterate, I'm not some religious conservative porn hating nut I love(d) porn, just not it's effect if that makes any sense...

Well could it not be justified as beneficial as an aids to stimulate more effective masturbation? (I suppose you're right though, porn in itself isn't beneficial, but the use of it will almost all of the time be in conjunction with masturbation, which as we agree can be beneficial.)

Not sure what you mean about the third point. Why would the fact that they don't know about their health issues associated with masturbation mean that such issues exist?

I had a quick look at that page, I didn't click the naked woman link, so proud of myself . Looks interesting, I'll read the rest tomorrow.

And yeah, I get you. I am not really massively for or against it, I just find the topic pretty interesting. It's not something I do excessively, nor is it something I plan to give up entirely. I think that's normal.

That would probably be a function of hypofrontality, whether it's "in the moment" or neural. The "wrong" factor of it is more stimulating, and clouds your judgement and then you orgasm. Then you realize you just successfully had a **** to fart porn... oh shi-

Even if it's not that extreme, porn is unnatural and some people may just feel disgusted by it just for that reason. Until they desensitize themselves to it.

Disclaimer: Never done that. srs I just googled it and apparently it's a thing... there really is a porn for everything.

That is a highly moralistic word. Porn is the recorded video or picture of X number of people having sex or masturbating. Both of these actions are natural so while should the collective of both (porn) be unnatural?

-

Here is my formalised reasoning

If 'X' is true' and 'Y' is true then, 'X&Y' is true as well. Another example:
If "eating fruits is healthy' is true and "eating legumes is healthy" is true, then, "eating fruits and legumes is healthy" is true as well.

Here is my formalised reasoning

If 'X' is true' and 'Y' is true then, 'X&Y' is true as well. Another example:
If "eating fruits is healthy' is true and "eating legumes is healthy" is true, then, "eating fruits and legumes is healthy" is true as well.

You shouldn't need porn to masturbate. Masturbation is relatively natural, porn isn't.True, you shouldn't need it, but the point of it is to increase the amount of pleasure gained from masturbation. Why turn that down? (Although I don't always use it, and am perfectly fine without it, I see no problem with using it.) Porn is super-stimulating and anything super-stimulating leads to D2 downregulation. It's the basis for all dopaminergic addictions. You have been desensitized if you need it to masturbate or if masturbating without it just doesn't really do it for you (even if you finish fine etc). Desensitization (in the sense I'm thinking of, I believe,) occurs from cumulative exposure over a large amount of time (a fancy way of saying "you get used to it"). If you need porn to masturbate you may have been desensitized, but that doesn't get to the root of why you can't do without it. If anything I am proof that the two concepts aren't mutually exclusive

My point wasn't that it shows they do but it doesn't show that it doesn't. You said that since they don't know about it it's unlikely they exist and I said why it's not necessarily a valid point since change is gradual.Fair enough. I was just making the point that if there were serious health risks associated with it, then surely those would've been picked up by now, with the amount of people doing it.

If you genuinely have no compulsive or addictive behaviour to it then it's not really a problem. I know people who wouldn't dream of masturbating without porn and think it's completely normal, and people who use it sparingly. But tolerances are different so you might still have some issues without realizing - unlikely though. Maybe, I doubt it though. Either way I don't really care, I'm happy! As you said tolerances are different. A little for one person might be a lot for another. What's important is that it's the right amount for that respective person.

Watching it on a computer screen is definitely not natural. I didn't say it was immoral - that would be subjective.

Cause you feel tired and if your in a relationship then you shouldn't really need it

Watching it on a computer screen is definitely not natural. I didn't say it was immoral - that would be subjective.

That's called the law of conjunction. However, the conclusion in your example ought to be "eating fruits is healthy and eating legumes is healthy," not, "eating fruits and legumes is healthy," which would be a non-sequitur, as we wouldn't know anything about whether eating fruits and legumes in conjunction was healthy.

(Not a criticism of your argument, I just like logic and guess you do too)

Dopamine is a wonderful chemical(when you have a lot of it)

Detecting a game of semantics here. Most definitions of the word exclude man-made inventions as being natural, so it is true that pornography is not natural because it is man-made. However, humans are themselves also a product of natural causes just like all other animals, and there is no reason particularly to single out what humans do as 'unnatural'. Because of this, I think it isn't fair to call anything man-made unnatural; all that occurs in a natural universe is, in some sense, natural. It's certainly not a good reason to condemn a thing.

Watching sex in a computer screen is not natural but neither it is writing, using clothes, eating with a spoon, fork and knife. Nor it living in houses or going to school. But it does not really hurt, does it?

Haha I wasn't playing semantics at all. By unnatural I was referring to its relatively sudden introduction into our lives and our lack of evolution and adaptation to it. I wasn't condemning porn (in this sense anyway) because it is man-made but because we aren't wired for it.

Dopamine and serotinin, the only two things I enjoy.

Good debate going on here though.