View Full Version : Porn, Novelty and the Coolidge Effect
Panopticon
12-07-2012, 11:20 AM
Porn, Novelty and the Coolidge Effect
Without the Coolidge Effect there would be no Internet porn
Published on August 8, 2011 by Gary Wilson in Cupid's Poisoned Arrow
http://rsrc.psychologytoday.com/files/imagecache/article-inline-full/blogs/30011/2011/08/71388-61772.png
The Coolidge Effect is an ancient biological program that can override your sluggish contentment after orgasm if there are new mates begging to be fertilized. Without it, there would be no Internet porn. This neurological mechanism perceives each new erotic possibility—including those on your screen—as a valuable genetic opportunity, and jolts you into action with potent neurochemicals.
What happens when you drop a male rat into a cage with a receptive female rat? First, there's a sexual frenzy. Then, the male progressively tires of that particular female. Even if she wants more he has had enough. However, replace the original female with a fresh one, and presto! The male revives and gallantly struggles to fertilize her. You can repeat this process with fresh females until he nearly dies of exhaustion. Scientists know this phenomenon as the Coolidge Effect and it has been observed in females, too.
The rat goes after each new female because of surges of dopamine (a neurochemical) in his brain. Nothing natural comes close to releasing as much dopamine as sex, because our genes want to make their way into the future above all else. Dopamine surges command the rat to leave no willing mate unfertilized.
Dopamine is the "gotta get it!" neurochemical behind all motivation. Without it we wouldn't bother to court, pursue climax, or even eat. When dopamine drops, so does motivation (http://www.psychologytoday.com/basics/motivation). Dopamine is also the hook in all addictions. An addict's brain grows less sensitive to it, and thus, paradoxically, more desperate for it.
Back to the rat. Following each copulation with the same female his reward circuitry squirts less and less dopamine. Consider the above graph. The fifth time a rat copulates with the same female it takes him 17 minutes to get off. Ejaculation time increases as dopamine released decreases. But if he keeps switching to novel females, he can do his duty in two minutes or less all five times. His brain renews his virility with strong squirts of dopamine in response to each new partner.
Unlike rats, humans are pair bonders. We're wired, on average, to raise offspring together—and to find a fair amount of contentment in our unions (potentially). But the Coolidge Effect lurks in us, too, and awakens when duty trumpets loudly enough. I once had a conversation with a man who had grown up in Los Angeles. "I quit counting at 350 lovers," he confessed, "and I guess there must be something terribly wrong with me because I always lost interest in them sexually so quickly. Some of those women are really beautiful, too."
At the time of our chat his third wife had just left him for a Frenchman and he was discouraged. She had lost interest in him.
Internet porn: the Coolidge Effect on twin turbos
Online erotica can goad a user relentlessly. Endless novel "mates" keep dopamine surging. One guy noticed how novelty was the hook:
I collected a lot of porn. I thought I was amassing some wonderful database of pleasure. But I can't remember ever actually going back. The compelling part is the new star, the novel video, the novel act.
Not surprisingly, numerous studies employing porn show that rats and humans aren't that different when it comes to response to novel sexual stimuli. For example, when Australian researchers (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10846806) displayed the same erotic film repeatedly, test subjects' penises and subjective reports both revealed a progressive decrease in sexual arousal. The "same old same old" just gets boring (habituation, which indicates declining dopamine).
After 18 viewings—just as the test subjects were nodding off—researchers introduced novel erotica for the 19th and 20th viewings. Bingo! The subjects and their penises sprang to attention. (Yes, women showed similar effects (http://www.mendeley.com/research/habituation-dishabituation-female-sexual-arousal/#).)
http://rsrc.psychologytoday.com/files/imagecache/article-inline-full/blogs/30011/2011/08/71388-61773.jpg
Dopamine surges for anything novel—especially if it's sexual. A primitive part of the brain doesn't care if we've already had more than enough sex; it wants genetic results. For example, Sooty (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/1048327.stm), a male guinea pig, broke into a cage of twenty-four females. For days after he was apprehended, he was knackered. (Research on other rodents shows that full recovery of the brain takes about seven days (http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/1467-9450.00343/abstract), and research on humans also reveals a post-ejaculation cycle (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12659241) of at least seven days.)
Sooty's genes were happy though; he fathered 42 baby pigs. Such opportunities were once rare for males of all species, but the Coolidge Effect insures that should an occasion arise, males will disregard their natural limitations and go at it till they drop.
Obviously, males need time to recover their potency (http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/cupids-poisoned-arrow/201106/exiting-the-gene-pool-due-low-sperm-count-or-ed) and vigor after overriding their sexual satiation mechanisms with dopamine/novelty. Yet what happens to today's Internet porn users? How many are overriding their innate sexual satiation mechanisms—without giving themselves weeklong timeouts to recover? There is always another enticing "mate" demanding to be fertilized. Tellingly, when men with porn-induced erectile dysfunction quit using porn they experience an unnerving "flatline (http://yourbrainonporn.com/i-quit-porn-but-my-potency-and-libido-are-decreasing-help)." Once they lift their foot off the gas, their libido takes a nap that lasts for weeks—an extreme version of Sooty's recovery period.
Novelty can make mates seem less attractive
Dopamine isn't just released in response to novelty. When something is more arousing than anticipated (http://link.brightcove.com/services/player/bcpid651017566001?bckey=AQ~~,AAAAGuNzXFE~,qu1BWJRU 7c26MMkbB19ukwmFB5ysvYz5&bctid=722717921001) the brain's reward circuitry releases dopamine and fires like crazy. Internet porn always offers something unexpected, something kinkier.
In contrast, sex with your sweetheart is not always better than expected. Nor does it offer endless variety. It offers other kinds of more soothing rewards (http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/cupids-poisoned-arrow/200909/the-lazy-way-stay-in-love). Sadly, a primitive part of your brain assumes quantity of dopamine equals value of activity even when it doesn't.
Bottom line: Too much synthetic stimulation (http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/cupids-poisoned-arrow/201106/pair-bonding-101-beware-novelty-aphrodisiac) can make your mate look like cold oatmeal. According to a 2007 study (http://dsc.discovery.com/news/2007/03/12/mateselection_hum.html), mere exposure to a series of images of sexy females causes a man to devalue his real-life partner. He rates her lower not only on attractiveness, but also on warmth and intelligence. Also, after pornography consumption, subjects in a 2006 study (http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1559-1816.1988.tb00027.x/abstract) reported less satisfaction with their intimate partner—including the partner's affection, appearance, sexual curiosity, and performance.
Even a few short decades ago, sex with a warm, receptive mate generally provided more dopamine than masturbating (again) to a sticky Playmate. After all, once Miss July was thoroughly "fertilized," you got less of a dopamine hit from her airbrushed curves. You had to wait for Miss August. Then came adult stores. But how many times could you get off to the same video before it was time to fetch a new one? (Paying for porn...how quaint.)
Today's Internet porn, in contrast, offers endless fireworks at the click of a mouse. You can hunt (another dopamine-releasing activity) for hours, and experience more novel sex partners every ten minutes than your hunter-gatherer ancestors experienced in a lifetime. Dopamine hit after dopamine hit can induce a drug-like altered state. (Cocaine, for example, owes its high to excess dopamine circulating in the brain.) It's powerful enough to override your brain's normal sexual satiation mechanisms after orgasm.
I have been masturbating to static porn images since I was a teenager. I never had a problem with ED until around 6 years ago. The problem began with access to free streaming Internet porn. As connection speed increased, so has the overwhelming availability to view as much as I could handle. I ended up rewiring my brain to get aroused only by masturbating to porn. I am in a relationship with a wonderful, gorgeous woman for the last 4 years and have notice a gradual decline in my libido and a rise in ED.
You often hear that, "Porn has been around forever, so it must be harmless." Yet this claim is meaningless once novelty's powerful effect on the brain is fully understood. Today's 24/7 Internet porn with unlimited genres doesn't simply allow you to quench your sexual appetite. It allows you to go far beyond that appetite—perhaps with unfortunate consequences. For some, masturbating to Internet porn becomes more compelling than sex:
Far from just "rubbing off," we chronic masturbators generally engage in a practice we call "edging (http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=edging)": bringing ourselves to the brink of orgasm repeatedly, without ejaculation. We sustain extremely high levels of sexual arousal literally for hours. I am an active participant in several masturbation-focused Internet groups, and moderator of one.
Many of us go so far as to abandon partner-sex, even while the partner remains available and willing. We've also coined the term "copulatory impotence" for the common phenomenon of being able to get it up to Internet porn, but not for a partner.
Whoa! An evolutionary mechanism calculated to increase offspring and their genetic variety can drive porn users away from real mates? Yes, because the mechanism runs on dopamine. Your brain assumes that if something gets you really hot, it has to be an honest-to-god fertilization opportunity (even worth taking dangerous risks for, back in the day).
Is the Coolidge Effect leading to the "demise of guys?"
Unless you understand the Coolidge Effect's hidden brain mechanism, which urges you to step on the gas even when you've had more than enough, it's hard to connect an insatiable libido with the fact that your brain is growing less responsive (http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/cupids-poisoned-arrow/201010/protect-your-appetite-pleasure) due to dopamine overload. After all, it can feel like your libido is insatiable. The situation is paradoxical because the powerful aphrodisiac of more porn at first feels like the answer to any sexual performance woes.
The reality, however, is that neurochemically-induced dissatisfaction deep in the brain may well be fueling your urge to seek more stimulation. A clue that your libido thermostat has been readjusted would be that you need Internet porn to get a healthy erection or get off. (Yes, back in the day, guys easily masturbated to climax with no porn.)
Other signs would be increased restlessness, irritability and dissatisfaction, desire for kinkier sex, finding your mate less attractive or compelling than the Internet, or a need more extreme material. Experts call such effects "tolerance (http://www.psychologytoday.com/basics/addiction)." They can indicate an addiction (http://www.psychologytoday.com/basics/addiction) process at work in the brain.
For example, watch this five-minute TED talk (http://www.ted.com/talks/zimchallenge.html) 'The Demise of Guys?' by famous psychologist Philip Zimbardo as he describes how "arousal addiction" is adversely affecting an entire generation. Said one recovering porn user:
I personally suffered from much of what he talks about in this video. Since stopping porn the depersonalization has dwindled. I crack witty jokes and speak fluently without thinking about what I'm saying or worrying about how others will react. My relationship with my girlfriend has also become more personal as some of the walls I put up are now crumbling. Excellent video.
Much of the trouble starts with the sneaky, novelty-driven Coolidge Effect—nature's whip for insuring that you do your duty if receptive mates are around, even if you have already had enough sex. Your genes (http://www.psychologytoday.com/basics/genetics) don't care what best eases your stress (http://www.psychologytoday.com/basics/stress), protects your health, or sustains your relationship. They automatically urge you to grab the option that releases the most dopamine. When an e-hottie beckons, your brain assumes you're in the gene-spreading business. That's top priority—regardless of collateral damage to you.
Visit Your Brain On Porn (http://www.yourbrainonporn.com/) for help in understanding (http://www.psychologytoday.com/basics/empathy) porn addiction.
http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/cupids-poisoned-arrow/201108/porn-novelty-and-the-coolidge-effect
I apologize for the half-assed links and everything, but something came and I couldn't be bothered. If you're not lazy, which I presumed most are, otherwise I wouldn't have gone through that work in the first place, read the actual article.
This is nonsense. People don't want novelty they want more of the same niche.
The real reason why they are coming up with this is because a generation of Middle Class women are not getting married because they can't compete with porn girls.
Methmatician
12-07-2012, 11:36 AM
Does this make polygamy ok? :D
Here is what young women tell me on college campuses when the subject comes up: They can’t compete, and they know it. For how can a real woman—with pores and her own breasts and even sexual needs of her own (let alone with speech that goes beyond “More, more, you big stud!”)—possibly compete with a cybervision of perfection, downloadable and extinguishable at will, who comes, so to speak, utterly submissive and tailored to the consumer’s least specification?
"least specification" means niche.
When I came of age in the seventies, it was still pretty cool to be able to offer a young man the actual presence of a naked, willing young woman. There were more young men who wanted to be with naked women than there were naked women on the market. If there was nothing actively alarming about you, you could get a pretty enthusiastic response by just showing up. Your boyfriend may have seen Playboy, but hey, you could move, you were warm, you were real. Thirty years ago, simple lovemaking was considered erotic in the pornography that entered mainstream consciousness: When Behind the Green Door first opened, clumsy, earnest, missionary-position intercourse was still considered to be a huge turn-on.
Well, I am 40, and mine is the last female generation to experience that sense of sexual confidence and security in what we had to offer. Our younger sisters had to compete with video porn in the eighties and nineties, when intercourse was not hot enough. Now you have to offer—or flirtatiously suggest—the lesbian scene, the ejaculate-in-the-face scene. Being naked is not enough; you have to be buff, be tan with no tan lines, have the surgically hoisted breasts and the Brazilian bikini wax—just like porn stars. (In my gym, the 40-year-old women have adult pubic hair; the twentysomethings have all been trimmed and styled.) Pornography is addictive; the baseline gets ratcheted up. By the new millennium, a vagina—which, by the way, used to have a pretty high “exchange value,” as Marxist economists would say—wasn’t enough; it barely registered on the thrill scale. All mainstream porn—and certainly the Internet—made routine use of all available female orifices.
http://nymag.com/nymetro/news/trends/n_9437/
Lesbians and facials are bullshit from the 90s. The standard routine is DP and air tight.
Before real porn people would have to put up with the hairy pussy and standard softcore sex. If you have a problem with today's porn I suggest you go back and look at porn from the 60s and 70s.
If we take an obvious example, Cuckolding. Guys that are into Cuckolding go deeper and deeper into the niche. Sure they might eventually end up with a breeding party but they don't all of a sudden go over to something else. Like lesbian. This disproves the theory that people seek novelty.
There are studies to support that the more porn you watch the happier you will be with your life,
This is yet another review of the literature that seems to find no societal ill effects of pornography. What about at the individual level? Are women who view pornography terrorized beyond redemption? Do they descend into a well of despair and self-doubt about their sexuality? Do men become misogynist monsters upon viewing pornographic material? Do they develop debilitating penis insecurities at the sight of well-endowed male porn actors? Let's see what Gert Martin Hald and Neil M. Malamuth found in their 2008 paper titled Self-Perceived Effects of Pornographic Consumption. I should mention that Neil Malamuth is a highly regarded scholar of pornography who has often argued for its supposed ill effects. Hence, if there exists a possibility of an a priori bias here, it would be in hoping to find that pornography yields negative consequences.
In their survey of 688 young Danish adults (men = 316; women = 372), Hald and Malamuth found that respondents construed the viewing of hardcore pornography as beneficial to their sex lives, their attitudes towards sex, their perceptions and attitudes towards members of the opposite sex, toward life in general, and over all. The obtained beneficial effects were statistically significant for all but one measure across both sexes. Now here is the kicker: A positive correlation was obtained between the amount of hardcore pornography that was viewed and the impact of the benefits reaped. This positive correlation was found for both sexes. In other words, the more that one watched porn, the stronger the benefits (for both sexes)! There you have it.
http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/homo-consumericus/201001/pornography-beneficial-or-detrimental
Now watch this debate,
HDNxlzzPQBE
You will notice that hot chicks are generally for porn, while ugly chicks are generally against porn. You have to ask yourself who are you going to side with?
Panopticon
12-07-2012, 12:52 PM
This is nonsense. People don't want novelty they want more of the same niche.
Apparently, we do want novelty, because our brain is wired for it. And that is not simply me making assertions. Both males and females have been scientifically proven to be drawn towards sexual novelty. (However, have in mind that the main focus is still the male.) Our brains are wired towards seeking novelty in general, not only sexual novelty. It is part of the most basic knowledge there is in evolutionary psychology. Any attempt to revise it would fail.
Did you read the article? Either you did not read it, you are choosing to ignore whatever did not fit you or you lack reading comprehension.
The real reason why they are coming up with this is because a generation of Middle Class women are not getting married because they can't compete with porn girls.
That is simply you making unfounded assertions, again. I am quite skeptic towards the idea that the sexual lives and human relationships of females revolve around porn actresses. Furthermore, 'middle class women not being able to get married' is not even relevant to the topic.
"least specification" means niche.
http://nymag.com/nymetro/news/trends/n_9437/
Lesbians and facials are bullshit from the 90s. The standard routine is DP and air tight.
Before real porn people would have to put up with the hairy pussy and standard softcore sex. If you have a problem with today's porn I suggest you go back and look at porn from the 60s and 70s.
You are missing the point. The article itself makes a distinction between porn and Internet porn, the latter being the cause of the problem.
Moreover, you simply assert things while backing it up with some anecdotal evidence. This has its foundation in science.
If we take an obvious example, Cuckolding. Guys that are into Cuckolding go deeper and deeper into the niche. Sure they might eventually end up with a breeding party but they don't all of a sudden go over to something else. Like lesbian. This disproves the theory that people seek novelty.
No, it does not. The Coolidge Effect has been proven in humans and in nearly every mammal which has been tested. Your inane example hardly even disturbs years of scientific experiment. The Coolidge Effect already has veritable, empirical evidence to support it.
Also, your argument is a logical fallacy. The premise is false to begin with; 'the Coolidge Effect/people seeking novelty is wrong if cuckolders do not suddenly go to something else'.
There are studies to support that the more porn you watch the happier you will be with your life,
http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/homo-consumericus/201001/pornography-beneficial-or-detrimental
The self-perceived effects of porn are irrelevant as most people are horrible at self-perception. On the other hand, actual effects are very relevant. Moreover, it relates to a discussion I never went into. I have never argued that porn affects one's view of the other sex, etc. Essentially, it is a straw-man. You continually manage to fail to touch upon the content of the article.
Apparently, we do want novelty, because our brain is wired for it. And that is not simply me making assertions. Both males and females have been scientifically proven to be drawn towards sexual novelty. (However, have in mind that the main focus is still the male.) Our brains are wired towards seeking novelty in general, not only sexual novelty. It is part of the most basic knowledge there is in evolutionary psychology. Any attempt to revise it would fail.
Did you read the article? Either you did not read it, you are choosing to ignore whatever did not fit you or you lack reading comprehension.
No we do not want novelty. We want more of the same. An experiment on rats is not applicable to human behavior in this case. I can prove this to you,
Compare the average partner count of heterosexual men with the partner count of homosexual men. Heterosexual men have 10 to 20 female partners while homosexual men have 50 to 100 partners. If heterosexual men wanted novelty they would have as many partners as homosexual men. The fact that they don't indicate that heterosexual men and women prefer their niche, not novelty.
That is simply you making unfounded assertions, again. I am quite skeptic towards the idea that the sexual lives and human relationships of females revolve around porn actresses. Furthermore, 'middle class women not being able to get married' is not even relevant to the topic.
It is a sociological explanation for why this debate exists. We could be debating space travel or eugenics or anything else. But we don't so that means there is a reason why this debate exists.
You are missing the point. The article itself makes a distinction between porn and Internet porn, the latter being the cause of the problem.
Moreover, you simply assert things while backing it up with some anecdotal evidence. This has its foundation in science.
There is no distinction and there is no problem. Why is this? Because before Internet porn there were porn magazines with lots of images in them. A man could watch a high amount of images simply by buying porn mags.
This is science on rats it's not applicable to humans.
No, it does not. The Coolidge Effect has been proven in humans and in nearly every mammal which has been tested. Your inane example hardly even disturbs years of scientific experiment. The Coolidge Effect already has veritable, empirical evidence to support it.
Also, your argument is a logical fallacy. The premise is false to begin with; 'the Coolidge Effect/people seeking novelty is wrong if cuckolders do not suddenly go to something else'.
No, it's nonsense because the theory does not match the real world. Compare heterosexual men with homosexual men.
My argument is right because it falsifies the theory. Cuckolds do not switch to lesbians for the novelty. If men wanted novelty then lesbians would be perfect because it's two new women instead of one. It's the ultimate in novelty. But most men do not prefer lesbian porn. And cuckolds prefer more cuckolding instead of seeing new women in lesbian porn. This shows that the theory is wrong.
The self-perceived effects of porn are irrelevant as most people are horrible at self-perception. On the other hand, actual effects are very relevant. Moreover, it relates to a discussion I never went into. I have never argued that porn affects one's view of the other sex, etc. Essentially, it is a straw-man. You continually manage to fail to touch upon the content of the article.
Your argument is wrong because the study shows correlation,
* People who watch less porn report feeling worse.
* People who watch more porn report feeling better.
It doesn't matter if the average person is good at self-perception or not because it's correlation that matters.
Virtuous
12-07-2012, 01:39 PM
I don't understand your reasoning Mary, but I think us men would be far more better off without porn in the long run, it kills our imagination, makes us less motivated and more tired, makes us always want new things and it's never enough (same with all other addictions), the more you get the more you want.
In a way, the problem is indeed porn itself, it makes peoples expectations higher and more disappointed, men are the most who suffer with insecurity because of that reason.
I don't understand your reasoning Mary, but I think us men would be far more better off without porn in the long run, it kills our imagination, makes us less motivated and more tired, makes us always want new things and it's never enough (same with all other addictions), the more you get the more you want.
In a way, the problem is indeed porn itself, it makes peoples expectations higher and more disappointed, men are the most who suffer with insecurity because of that reason.
Everyone has a kink. The more you get your kink fulfilled the happier you get. So if you're not happy, that's not because you watch porn, it's because you don't watch enough porn or you watch the wrong kind of porn.
The meaning of life is to make your kink into a 24/7 lifestyle. Take Hugh Heffner for example, his kink is to be a Playboy and he lives the Playboy lifestyle 24/7. Do you think he's happy?
For example, your kink might be that you want to be a sex slave to a sexually dominant woman. If you lived that way 24/7 would it make you happy?
If you feel unsatisfied that will motivate you to actually go out and get porn sex.
Virtuous
12-07-2012, 02:13 PM
Everyone has a kink. The more you get your kink fulfilled the happier you get. So if you're not happy, that's not because you watch porn, it's because you don't watch enough porn or you watch the wrong kind of porn.
The meaning of life is to make your kink into a 24/7 lifestyle. Take Hugh Heffner for example, his kink is to be a Playboy and he lives the Playboy lifestyle 24/7. Do you think he's happy?
For example, your kink might be that you want to be a sex slave to a sexually dominant woman. If you lived that way 24/7 would it make you happy?
If you feel unsatisfied that will motivate you to actually go out and get porn sex.
No mary, Hugh Heffner is a millionaire, he can get whatever he wants including all the chicks he's got, that's why he is happy.
Life is not all about sex and kinks...and porn. Sure, most of us subconsciously think about it all the time because it's in our nature, but the way you do it is out of the order, it is obsession, and no obsession is good.
You are an individual and you chose to have a kinky life, others chose different pursues and have a normal sex life.
In other words, stop trying to force your way of life on everyone, you are worse than those Jehova preachers :D.
But I have to correct myself, Porn is not the problem itself, still though, you can't say that watching porn regularly makes the viewer extremely happy with his life, it's more often the contrary.
No mary, Hugh Heffner is a millionaire, he can get whatever he wants including all the chicks he's got, that's why he is happy.
Life is not all about sex and kinks...and porn. Sure, most of us subconsciously think about it all the time because it's in our nature, but the way you do it is out of the order, it is obsession, and no obsession is good.
You are an individual and you chose to have a kinky life, others chose different pursues and have a normal sex life.
In other words, stop trying to force your way of life on everyone, you are worse than those Jehova preachers :D.
You can be a millionaire in many different ways but he chose to be a rich playboy. That's a special lifestyle.
Sex is the meaning of life, because it has to do with passing on your genes. Everything you do is with the ultimate goal of having sex. Everyone is born with a sexual obsession. If you embrace it then you will be happy with your life. If you repress it you will go around feeling unhappy all the time.
Look most people who have a normal life are very very unhappy. Would you say that Hugh Heffner has a normal life? No! Is he happy? Yes!
You're just butthurt because you can't have a kinky life yourself, because you're too full of complexes to embrace your obsessions.
Panopticon
12-07-2012, 02:29 PM
No we do not want novelty. We want more of the same. An experiment on rats is not applicable to human behavior in this case. I can prove this to you,
Compare the average partner count of heterosexual men with the partner count of homosexual men. Heterosexual men have 10 to 20 female partners while homosexual men have 50 to 100 partners. If heterosexual men wanted novelty they would have as many partners as homosexual men. The fact that they don't indicate that heterosexual men and women prefer their niche, not novelty.
Experiments on rats are often applicable to human behaviour. Why do you even think scientists use rats for experiments in the first place? We know that it exists in humans because it is based on the same reward systems that exist in humans.
If you were informed on this, you would know that novel activities makes our brain release dopamine. Basically, that means that the brain rewards us for doing stuff and encourages us to do more stuff for another dopamine fix. Thus you have the novelty seeking behaviour seen in humans.
Furthermore, addictive drugs tap into the dopamine reward system. It is through dopamine we become addicted. The reason we need more of 'it' is that we become more tolerant towards dopamine and therefore need more dopamine to satisfy us. Sex and porn just happen to tap into our reward system as well. Our modern age of easily accessible Internet porn means that there is an overindulgence in dopamine releasing activities.
Ironically enough, your example can be used to prove my point. Heterosexual men are bound by other factors than merely sex, they therefore require more stable relationships. Marriage, family and so on are often not the priority of homosexuals as it is more complicated and fruitless. Therefore, they tend to be more sexually promiscuous, because sex is the only factor. Meaning that gay people seek more novelty because there are no obstacles preventing them from doing so, and as mentioned, sex is the only factor here.
There would be no need for me to do that though, as the argument is a straw-man and a non-sequitur, both of which you have provided more of, to begin with.
It is a sociological explanation for why this debate exists. We could be debating space travel or eugenics or anything else. But we don't so that means there is a reason why this debate exists.
Hardly a good explanation in any case. It is also an appeal to motive; in other words, an ad-hominem. There is nothing in that article suggesting anything of the like, it hardly even gives women a mention.
There is no distinction and there is no problem. Why is this? Because before Internet porn there were porn magazines with lots of images in them. A man could watch a high amount of images simply by buying porn mags.
You are assuming that men would bother buying porn magazines, that it was customary and that there were no social stigmas surrounding that act.
This is science on rats it's not applicable to humans.
It is applicable to humans. I am by no means interested in arguing with you if you are not interested in accepting facts that do not fit your views.
No, it's nonsense because the theory does not match the real world. Compare heterosexual men with homosexual men.
The Coolidge Effect is not disputed by any science. Your comparison has a false premise.
My argument is right because it falsifies the theory. Cuckolds do not switch to lesbians for the novelty. If men wanted novelty then lesbians would be perfect because it's two new women instead of one. It's the ultimate in novelty. But most men do not prefer lesbian porn. And cuckolds prefer more cuckolding instead of seeing new women in lesbian porn. This shows that the theory is wrong.
You are trying to disprove a very real phenomenon using cuckolds as an example. The argument is wrong because it is a false premise. That cuckolds do not switch to lesbians for novelty does not prove or disprove anything. You really are just taking things out of context.
Your argument is wrong because the study shows correlation,
* People who watch less porn report feeling worse.
* People who watch more porn report feeling better.
It doesn't matter if the average person is good at self-perception or not because it's correlation that matters.
The study never mentions that watching less porn makes people feel worse, only that people feel better.
Self-reported effects are not that reliable, something which the study itself points out in the abstract.
You have pointed out to self-perceived effects, while I have pointed out to actual effects. We also know, based on how our reward system works, how this effects us, which is what the article in the OP points out.
At no point have you come up with any argument that is relevant to the article itself. Instead you have merely asserted that everything is wrong based on arguments that are logical fallacies.
Anyway. Have you actually read the article? It specifically mentions that experiments have been performed on humans.
Virtuous
12-07-2012, 02:30 PM
Whatever Mary, you're very stubborn for all I know and I surely won't argue about this anymore. I believe that no obsession is a good obsession.
You're just butthurt
I'm not the one who's obsessed with inserting giant buttplugs in teh rear-end :D
Experiments on rats are often applicable to human behaviour. Why do you even think scientists use rats for experiments in the first place? We know that it exists in humans because it is based on the same reward systems that exist in humans.
If you were informed on this, you would know that novel activities makes our brain release dopamine. Basically, that means that the brain rewards us for doing stuff and encourages us to do more stuff for another dopamine fix. Thus you have the novelty seeking behaviour seen in humans.
Furthermore, addictive drugs tap into the dopamine reward system. It is through dopamine we become addicted. The reason we need more of 'it' is that we become more tolerant towards dopamine and therefore need more dopamine to satisfy us. Sex and porn just happen to tap into our reward system as well. Our modern age of easily accessible Internet porn means that there is an overindulgence in dopamine releasing activities.
Ironically enough, your example can be used to prove my point. Heterosexual men are bound by other factors than merely sex, they therefore require more stable relationships. Marriage, family and so on are often not the priority of homosexuals as it is more complicated and fruitless. Therefore, they tend to be more sexually promiscuous, because sex is the only factor.
There would be no need for me to do that though, as the argument is a straw-man and a non-sequitur, both of which you have provided more of, to begin with.
1) Humans are not the same as rats. Obvious.
2) When it comes to porn the evidence goes the other way. See my Cuckolding example.
3) There is no proof that looking at porn makes you addicted. Use your common sense. People have dopamine release when they watch football too. Does that mean they become addicted to watching football? No, that would be ridiculous.
4) If heterosexual men wanted novelty they would go to Thailand and have sex with hundreds of women. But most heterosexual men don't do that. Obvious.
Hardly a good explanation in any case. It is also an appeal to motive; in other words, an ad-hominem. There is nothing in that article suggesting anything of the like, it hardly even gives women a mention.
Every debate should be analyzed sociologically. Why are we discussing porn and not space exploration? You would think that colonizing space is more important than guys fapping to porn.
You are assuming that men would bother buying porn magazines, that it was customary and that there were no social stigmas surrounding that act.
But men bought porn magazines otherwise it would have been a fringe phenomena. So if men wanted novelty they could get just as much novelty 30-40 years ago.
It is applicable to humans. I am by no means interested in arguing with you if you are not interested in accepting facts that do not fit your views.
The theory does not fit the facts. Read this,
A quick peek at the online offerings at Adult Video Universe lists over nine hundred titles in the Gangbang genre, but only twenty-seven listed under Reverse Gangbang. You do the math. Why would the males in a species that’s been wearing the shackles of monogamy for 1.9 million years be sexually excited by scenes of groups of men ejaculating with one or two women?
http://www.sexatdawn.com/page11/page8/page8.html
If men wanted novelty they would prefer porn with several women and one man, right? They get to see more new women. But in reality men prefer porn with one woman and several men. This means that they see fewer women. So obviously the theory does not match the reality.
The Coolidge Effect is not disputed by any science. Your comparison has a false premise.
I have just falsified it.
You are trying to disprove a very real phenomenon using cuckolds as an example. The argument is wrong because it is a false premise. That cuckolds do not switch to lesbians for novelty does not prove or disprove anything. You really are just taking things out of context.
Your theory claims that men use porn for novelty. Once they have seen one category of porn they get tired of it and move on to a new one. In this case men prefer to go deeper into one category and not move on to a category where they get to see more women, such as lesbian. And Cuckolding is not an exception.
It's obvious that the opposite is true, men use porn to see the same thing over and over and not to see new things.
The study never mentions that watching less porn makes people feel worse, only that people feel better.
Self-reported effects are not that reliable, something which the study itself points out in the abstract.
You have pointed out to self-perceived effects, while I have pointed out to actual effects. We also know, based on how our reward system works, how this effects us, which is what the article in the OP points out.
At no point have you come up with any argument that is relevant to the article itself. Instead you have merely asserted that everything is wrong based on arguments that are logical fallacies.
The correlation goes like this,
* People who watch less porn report feeling less happy.
* People who watch more porn report feeling more happy.
If we assume that the ability of self-perception is evenly distributed, is shows that watching more porn makes people more happy.
You get a reward feeling when you eat cookies too and yet most people aren't addicted to cookies. So the idea that you can get addicted to a reward from within your own body is bullshit.
Whatever Mary, you're very stubborn for all I know and I surely won't argue about this anymore. I believe that no obsession is a good obsession.
We all go down that road you're just in denial. The more you repress it the more you're going to want it and the worse you feel. And in the end you'll flip out.
I'm not the one who's obsessed with inserting giant buttplugs in teh rear-end :D
They're not giant they're average. But you're the one who likes to fap to it.
Neanderthal
12-07-2012, 03:31 PM
This is nonsense. People don't want novelty they want more of the same niche.
The real reason why they are coming up with this is because a generation of Middle Class women are not getting married because they can't compete with porn girls.
Well, is yet to be tested in humans, but it does work with rats. And is far for being a new study, it's called Coolidge honouring John Calvin Coolidge (30th president of the US.)
PD: I'm studying biopsychology and neurology (with rats.)
Well, is yet to be tested in humans, but it does work with rats. And is far for being a new study, it's called Coolidge honouring John Calvin Coolidge (30th president of the US.)
PD: I'm studying biopsychology and neurology (with rats.)
Even if the principle would be true in general it would not apply to porn and heterosexual relationships.
Men who view pornographic images of two men and a woman produce better-quality sperm than men viewing pornographic images of just women, an Australian study reveals.
In samples from men who viewed the images containing the two men and a woman - the "sperm-competition" images - 52% of the sperm were motile. This compared with 49% sperm motility in the men who viewed the images of women only - a difference that was statistically significant after taking into account lifestyle factors such as cigarette smoking and alcohol consumption.
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn7487-rivals-spur-men-to-produce-better-sperm.html
In times past it used to be "masturbation gives you hairy palms" now a days you can't say that so it's "porn is bad".
Hurrem sultana
12-07-2012, 03:40 PM
Everyone has a kink. The more you get your kink fulfilled the happier you get. So if you're not happy, that's not because you watch porn, it's because you don't watch enough porn or you watch the wrong kind of porn.
The meaning of life is to make your kink into a 24/7 lifestyle. Take Hugh Heffner for example, his kink is to be a Playboy and he lives the Playboy lifestyle 24/7. Do you think he's happy?
For example, your kink might be that you want to be a sex slave to a sexually dominant woman. If you lived that way 24/7 would it make you happy?
If you feel unsatisfied that will motivate you to actually go out and get porn sex.
hugh Hefner looks good at age 78,how many guys can do that :D
If the argument that dopamine release makes you want more extreme material was true, then watching football would lead to you starting to do base jumping. Ban football it's bad for you!
If the argument that dopamine release makes you want more extreme material was true, then watching football would lead to you starting to do base jumping. Ban football it's bad for you!
Some people get jailed because of riots, after a soccer match their team lost.
Some people get jailed because of riots, after a soccer match their team lost.
Yes, some guys get a rush out of fighting, but they don't advance to killing.
Yes, some guys get a rush out of fighting, but they don't advance to killing.
http://www.balkaninsight.com/en/article/new-turnout-in-the-case-of-french-fan-murder
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/8280399.stm
http://rt.com/sport/football/dutch-referee-death-nieuw-sloten-200/
People got killed because of soccer.
Here's the deal, they've probably seen men browse a lot of porn and drawn the conclusion that the men are looking for new material. Basically that they're looking for quantity. But men are actually looking for very specific material that they can watch several times. They are looking for quality.
http://www.balkaninsight.com/en/article/new-turnout-in-the-case-of-french-fan-murder
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/8280399.stm
http://rt.com/sport/football/dutch-referee-death-nieuw-sloten-200/
People got killed because of soccer.
Those are accidents in the heat of the moment. They don't move on to becoming serial killers.
Take video games for example. Does playing one shooter make you want to play lots of shooters? No, you want to play the same game over and over. Counterstrike is an example. People still play it even though there is better stuff out there in therms of graphics.
This shows that people are actually looking for quality and not quantity.
The old Scandinavian porn were the bestest ... all these new fetish stuff are boring imo.
The old Scandinavian porn were the bestest ... all these new fetish stuff are boring imo.
Fetish is the good stuff. Old porn is no good.
Fetish is the good stuff. Old porn is no good.
Some particular fetishes, yes. It depends on the individual.
'Pleasure of Copenhagen' :thumb001:
Neanderthal
12-07-2012, 04:10 PM
Even if the principle would be true in general it would not apply to porn and heterosexual relationships.
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn7487-rivals-spur-men-to-produce-better-sperm.html
In times past it used to be "masturbation gives you hairy palms" now a days you can't say that so it's "porn is bad".
What's your point Mary?
That genetic study is worthless. You should know that sperm is nothing but pure proteins and in order to have a good sperm count you have to have a healthy diet, do exercise (excitation is a factor too) So how could you blatantly say that the men in that study were on the same food/excitation/health conditions/level to begin with?
Do not believe everything you read on the web.;)
Those are accidents in the heat of the moment. They don't move on to becoming serial killers.
Take video games for example. Does playing one shooter make you want to play lots of shooters? No, you want to play the same game over and over. Counterstrike is an example. People still play it even though there is better stuff out there in therms of graphics.
This shows that people are actually looking for quality and not quantity.
Well, people are looking for quality, but they'll always look for better and better, if you take Saudi Arabia where porn is forbidden, guys there would get excited by an action movie with a love scene. If they would have the opportunity to see Sandra Romain, they'd drop those movies and will not get aroused by it anymore...Except you take Sandra out of their eyes and check what is going on 6 months later, but it would not be "like before".
You have the same process with people listening to neo-metal, than 5 years later are crackheads listening to the worst Black Metal possible and enjoying it because it's Trve Kvlt as they say.
What's your point Mary?
That genetic study is worthless. You should know that sperm is nothing but pure proteins and in order to have a good sperm count you have to have a healthy diet, do exercise (excitation is a factor too) So how could you blatantly say that the men in that study were on the same food/excitation/health conditions/level to begin with?
Do not believe everything you read on the web.;)
My point is that the theory that men use porn for novelty is nonsense. Men prefer to see the same niche over and over.
Here is another study that disproves the Coolidge effect,
Surprisingly, Pound (2002) found that males
also strongly preferred FMM fantasies to FFM
fantasies. Unlike with females, the sperm com-
petition characteristic of FMM sex is not benefi-
cial to men from the point of view of successful
reproduction.
www.sekj.org/PDF/anz49-free/anz49-093i.pdf
If men used porn to see an endless stream of new women they would prefer girl-girl-boy or girl-boy. But according to several studies they prefer boy-boy-girl. This is not beneficial for reproduction or for seeing more women but men still prefer it. This shows you that this whole approach is wrong.
Panopticon
12-07-2012, 04:43 PM
1) Humans are not the same as rats. Obvious.
They are subject to the same biological mechanisms. However, that is not the point. Do you really think that biologists, neurologists and psychologists are so inept that they would mistake the two for no reason?
2) When it comes to porn the evidence goes the other way. See my Cuckolding example.
An argument is not evidence. It is much less so when the argument is wrong.
3) There is no proof that looking at porn makes you addicted. Use your common sense. People have dopamine release when they watch football too. Does that mean they become addicted to watching football? No, that would be ridiculous.
Correct me if I am wrong, but I believe I am not talking to a brick. The amounts of dopamine released when watching football and when watching porn cannot be compared. Moreover, the amounts of it that you see are extremely different. Although it does actually happen. It owes to the same reason there are gaming addicts f.e.
There is proof, but if it does not align with your opinions it is not proof to you. It is already established that such a thing does exist. I am not interested in discussing how to revise it, especially if the arguments for revising are terrible.
4) If heterosexual men wanted novelty they would go to Thailand and have sex with hundreds of women. But most heterosexual men don't do that. Obvious.
That is another false premise.
Every debate should be analyzed sociologically. Why are we discussing porn and not space exploration? You would think that colonizing space is more important than guys fapping to porn.
I do agree with you, although I wonder why you think it is sociological analyzation. Pointing out to the motives of a person is valid, but not if the claims are unsubstantiated, which is the case.
But men bought porn magazines otherwise it would have been a fringe phenomena. So if men wanted novelty they could get just as much novelty 30-40 years ago.
They did, but porn magazines are not comparable to Internet porn. The article mentions one of those reasons.
The theory does not fit the facts. Read this,
http://www.sexatdawn.com/page11/page8/page8.html
It is irrelevant. Especially when the Coolidge Effect foremostly posits that men prefer women they have not seen before over women they have seen before.
If men wanted novelty they would prefer porn with several women and one man, right? They get to see more new women. But in reality men prefer porn with one woman and several men. This means that they see fewer women. So obviously the theory does not match the reality.
No, that has nothing to do with it. Men want new women.
I have just falsified it.
Ok.
Your theory claims that men use porn for novelty. Once they have seen one category of porn they get tired of it and move on to a new one. In this case men prefer to go deeper into one category and not move on to a category where they get to see more women, such as lesbian. And Cuckolding is not an exception.
"In biology and psychology, the Coolidge effect is a phenomenon—seen in nearly every mammalian species in which it has been tested—whereby males (and to a lesser extent females) exhibit renewed sexual interest if introduced to new receptive sexual partners,[1][2][3][4] even after refusing sex from prior but still available sexual partners."
The examples you mention are basically all just irrelevant. The most ironic thing is that you are trying to disprove an observance of something considered sexually regular with something that is sexually deviant. In other words, you use exceptions to the rule to prove your point.
It's obvious that the opposite is true, men use porn to see the same thing over and over and not to see new things.
Yet studies have shown that men (and women) are not as aroused if they have seen it as when they have not seen it.
The correlation goes like this,
* People who watch less porn report feeling less happy.
* People who watch more porn report feeling more happy.
If we assume that the ability of self-perception is evenly distributed, is shows that watching more porn makes people more happy.
You get a reward feeling when you eat cookies too and yet most people aren't addicted to cookies. So the idea that you can get addicted to a reward from within your own body is bullshit.
It is not even slightly comparable. Although since you mention it, people do actually get addicted to food because of dopamine.
And if you had any sort of idea, which you should have gotten by now as I have already told you; we become addicted to drugs because they tap into our reward system. Cocaine affects our dopamine receptors, consequently releasing dopamine. That is why cocaine makes us feel awesome and that is why we get addicted to it.
Well, is yet to be tested in humans, but it does work with rats. And is far for being a new study, it's called Coolidge honouring John Calvin Coolidge (30th president of the US.)
PD: I'm studying biopsychology and neurology (with rats.)
They actually have (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10846806). Albeit it does not matter anyway. Basic evolutionary mechanisms seen in mice should be seen in humans as well and they are. Mammals share quite many biological mechanisms.
Well, people are looking for quality, but they'll always look for better and better, if you take Saudi Arabia where porn is forbidden, guys there would get excited by an action movie with a love scene. If they would have the opportunity to see Sandra Romain, they'd drop those movies and will not get aroused by it anymore...Except you take Sandra out of their eyes and check what is going on 6 months later, but it would not be "like before".
You have the same process with people listening to neo-metal, than 5 years later are crackheads listening to the worst Black Metal possible and enjoying it because it's Trve Kvlt as they say.
You have to think in terms of niches. People have a niche they like such as Amazon and within that niche there's good stuff and bad stuff. You have to sort through a lot of bad stuff to come to the good stuff. Sandra Romain is top of the line in the Amazon theme. So once you see her you're only going to watch stuff with her. You're not going to watch stuff with girls that are not as good. This disproves the theory that people are looking to see novelty. They're looking to see good stuff within their own niche. I watch Sandra Romain, Bobbi Starr and Katsumi. I don't watch girls that are less good than them.
They are subject to the same biological mechanisms. However, that is not the point. Do you really think that biologists, neurologists and psychologists are so inept that they would mistake the two for no reason?
Use your common sense. You can't draw conclusions about human mating from rat mating. The closest ape to humans is the Bonobo and they all fuck each other like crazy. Should we draw conclusions about human mating from Bonobos?
An argument is not evidence. It is much less so when the argument is wrong.
The evidence is this, men who are into cuckolding do not switch niche to lesbians, they watch more cuckolding.
Correct me if I am wrong, but I believe I am not talking to a brick. The amounts of dopamine released when watching football and when watching porn cannot be compared. Moreover, the amounts of it that you see are extremely different. Although it does actually happen. It owes to the same reason there are gaming addicts f.e.
There is proof, but if it does not align with your opinions it is not proof to you. It is already established that such a thing does exist. I am not interested in discussing how to revise it, especially if the arguments for revising are terrible.
It doesn't matter, if you can get addicted to porn you should be able to get addicted to anything, like football, cookies, The Muppet Show. It's the principle that matters.
That is another false premise.
It's totally true. If men wanted novelty they would leave their families, save their earnings and fuck hundreds of prostitutes in Thailand. They could have as many sex partners as gay men if they wanted to. But heterosexual men don't do this and that indicates that they're not driven by novelty.
I do agree with you, although I wonder why you think it is sociological analyzation. Pointing out to the motives of a person is valid, but not if the claims are unsubstantiated, which is the case.
Because science doesn't exist in a vacuum. If you want someone to pay you to do research your results have to confirm what they think.
They did, but porn magazines are not comparable to Internet porn. The article mentions one of those reasons.
Why not? You would have perhaps 100 pictures per magazine so 10 magazines would mean 1000 pictures.
It is irrelevant. Especially when the Coolidge Effect foremostly posits that men prefer women they have not seen before over women they have seen before.
Then why do they watch the same actress over and over? That's what I do.
No, that has nothing to do with it. Men want new women.
If men want new women they would prefer lesbian porn because there you get two new women in every scene. But it's not the most popular category.
"In biology and psychology, the Coolidge effect is a phenomenon—seen in nearly every mammalian species in which it has been tested—whereby males (and to a lesser extent females) exhibit renewed sexual interest if introduced to new receptive sexual partners,[1][2][3][4] even after refusing sex from prior but still available sexual partners."
The examples you mention are basically all just irrelevant. The most ironic thing is that you are trying to disprove an observance of something considered sexually regular with something that is sexually deviant. In other words, you use exceptions to the rule to prove your point.
My examples all disprove that men want novelty. They show that men want repetition.
Yet studies have shown that men (and women) are not as aroused if they have seen it as when they have not seen it.
Maybe they were not that aroused with that porn to begin with?
It is not even slightly comparable. Although since you mention it, people do actually get addicted to food because of dopamine.
And if you had any sort of idea, which you should have gotten by now as I have already told you; we become addicted to drugs because they tap into our reward system. Cocaine affects our dopamine receptors, consequently releasing dopamine. That is why cocaine makes us feel awesome and that is why we get addicted to it.
Drugs is a chemical that comes from outside the body. You can't get addicted to your own dopamine because the body is self regulating.
They actually have (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10846806). Albeit it does not matter anyway. Basic evolutionary mechanisms seen in mice should be seen in humans as well and they are. Mammals share quite many biological mechanisms.
Humans are more complex than mice.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.3 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.