Is pic related worth getting? Any better books on the subject?

Just my opinion, man. Don't take it so personally. Just seems like a weirdly specific interest to have unless you're either studying Neuroscience and addiction, or wanting to masturbate less. If it's the second, this is not the right book.

Is porn really bad for you? Is there any legitimacy to this book?

Try to quit it for a month.

It's surprisingly difficult.

Quit watching porn about a week ago. I feel like shit, but that's because of other things

I believe the consensus is that it is.

It has to be. There's a plague of kids with erectile dysfunction, what other explanation is there?

There's a large dose of evidence (neurological, chemical, and plain anecdotal) that says that any pornography (especially internet pornography) and excessive masturbation is bad for you.

Was there difference between porn watchers and meditating Tibetan monks?

>neurological
>chemical
Could you provide any sort of scientific evidence?

OP, what if your porn addiction isn't the cause of your troubles, but just another symptom of a greater underlying problem?

when you watch it for extended periods of time and don't even masturbate

When they watch it on a laptop during their daughter's funeral.

i jerk off cus im lonely
the thing is you hear all these people saying how damaging it is but that for all the rough, passionaless shit (there was some tedx talk where this guy talked about how in most porn the man never holds the woman or some shit) but what if youre watching the most vanilla shit because that feel when no gf?

Well the problem there is you're not going out and getting a fucking GF.

someday....

reminder that if it's too hard to give up porn completely, even the simple move to softcore photo galleries helps

>alt right Veeky Forums hates porn, even softcore shit because, of course, it's "degenerate"
>wants to ban it
>glorifies homo-erotic displays of the male body and hailing the "gains"

Yeah you guys are gay as fuck to be honest.

True addiction is when it starts to affect areas of your life outside masturbation, especially when it comes to sexual performance. What's happening to some kids is since they grow up watching porn, that's what they program their bodies to like, and so when they actually go to fuck a girl, they can't get hard because they've programmed themselves to only become aroused by porn. Time magazine surprisingly wrote an article about it.
This sort of answers question, that it can be bad. Personally though I don't think it's bad in moderation. Porn has always been around, the only difference is that now it's so incredibly accessible that some are becoming dependent on it.

I want to get into helping people with addictions. Any recommendations?

Get an addiction so you can help from a position of experience.

Best thing you can do to get off of porn IMO is find something else to do. Occupy your mind with something else. When I used to watch porn, I would fap like 3 to 5 times a night if I had nothing to do. When I was busy I would sometimes not fap at all.

I used to have an addiction but I lost it naturally.

underrated

this

w-what's wrong with that?

Just search pubmed for the topic

No. Its non-scientific garbage

what if you have like 20 videos/streams open at the same time and you're switching between them with your left hand whilst you yank with the other
what then?

Get a hobby

-Brahmacharya by swami shivanada (world's oldest man at 120 who puts it down to not ejaculating)

-The Divine Matrimony by Samael Aun Weor

-The Multi-Orgasmic Man by Mantak Chia

-The Tao of Health, Sex and Vitality by Daniel Reid

So if I grab my girlfriend's ass and get a boner and she's not pregnant or tied up I'm okay?

there's a load of evidence that says it is

from personal experience, i found my sexual tastes become much more degenerate as a result of porn. if you watch it every day, you burn out on the conventional and start to seek more novel stimulants.
its hard to get off without them now.

i wank like 3 times a day sometimes and still have sex like every fortnight at least

i dont doubt that i have some sort of addiction to it, but its not like i have to duck out of public gatherings to bash off in the toilet

>Is porn really bad for you?

It depends on who you are and what is expected of you.
But to keep it simple, if you want to be what is considered a healthy/normally functioning person who contributes to society, porn does more bad than good IMO.

I think one of the worst aspects of porn consumption is hyper-stimulation. This is most true for internet porn and internet in general (and Veeky Forums is a typical example of that).
It's creating hedonistic people who are constantly looking for quick entertainment/dopamine rushes.

Porn consumption is also a symptom of deeper societal problems. Basically people are brought up in a meaningless world with no higher goals, so they end up glorifying sex and other pleasures.

I've read some of the research and I believe its inconclusive at best. There are studies which say it is and studies which say its not. I don't agree with some of the responses you've received, such as and . I think porn usage in moderation is the best way to go.

>I think porn usage in moderation is the best way to go.

Why do you believe some porn use better than none?

The bad thing is that real girls weaken your life and imagination.

People do this? I solely watch porn to expediate the masturbation process. Does this mean I'm probably not addicted?

>I'm not gay, but porn has made me attracted to dick girls.

whats the problem being gay? (no homo)

btw, that guy is hot as fuck and when i look at him i feel like i should at least try to fix my shit

He looks like a girl though.

Porn absolutely has made me comfortable with the idea of sucking a dick.

here is why all these theories about this stuff is stupid

If watching so much porn is so bad for you then why is the human brain designed to have such a high libido in the first place?
see the reason watching porn is "bad" is not because it hurts the individual directly its because it hurts society by removing that uncontrollable biological desire that drives people to go out and be a "productive" member within it aka jump through hoops to achieve what it has dictated as success

human sexuality is such a mental thing there is just simply no way I could ever possibly believe that it could be permanently and irreversibly "damaged" on any kind of wide scale nor could I believe that watching porn magically makes the reproductive system in a human body somehow stop working as intended
meanwhile there is a hundred drugs on the market that do have adverse side effects on this but who cares about that I think I might have watched one too many pornos this week

>whats the problem being gay? (no homo)

What's the purpose of gay sex? Pleasure. That's the only possible reason you would want to partake in it. To say its not wrong would be to assume that pleasure in itself is a moral good, which I don't believe it is because there's lots of things I could do purely for pleasure that would not be morally acceptable. Sex should be rooted in its 'telos' or rationally known purpose, which is reproductive. Whenever you engage in a sexual activity that not ordered towards this end you're reducing it to pleasure, which is not a moral good in itself.

If you were to claim that pleasure in itself is a moral good then what possible argument could you make against men sucking off dogs or fathers sleeping with their sons? Any objection you make could be easily dismissed because it's philosophically inconsistent. By accepting gay sex you must also accept some forms of bestiality and incest.

There is no such thing as homosexuality. Only people who indulge themselves into that behavior.

>into that behavior
As in, homosexual behavior?

the purpose might be, that we don't breed over the limits of our ecosystem? Idk, does anyone have any sauce on that? I quite agree with you, tho.

As in, sodomy. As in, needing to swallow pills to reduce the pain to be able to have sexual intercourse. As in, not being able to eat for an entire day and cleaning out your butt before you can have sexual intercourse. yes.

>Sex should be rooted in its 'telos' or rationally known purpose, which is reproductive.
Why? Because you say so?

Your line of logic makes no sense. Accepting gay sex does not meet the conclusion of accepting ALL manner of sex. Two consenting adults engaging in a pleasure act that hurts no one is not the same as a father raping his son. Why would you even say that, beyond trying to sound deeper than you have really thought it?

Also, I suppose you never do anything pleasurable, unless that pleasure is only a side product? Because that would make you quite the hypocrite, Tommy.

So, your previous post is just semantics?
Also, what the fuck are you talking about, swallowing pills? Have you ever heard of lube?

Why does everybody think that just because two people consent that it makes it all okay? They are hurting other people as these people can now force Priests to marry them. Because these people can now adopt children.

You clearly have no idea what it means to have sex in your butt for a long period of time.

>They are hurting other people as these people can now force Priests to marry them. Because these people can now adopt children.
This wasn't what we were discussing. We were talking about gay sex, and the "morality" of engaging in homosexual acts. Two gay men having sex has nothing to do with what you listed. I agree with you that a child should have a mother and father, not two fathers. That does not mean I condemn gay sex, just that particular aspect of gay relationships.

Why do you have such disdain for a case of the gays?

>You clearly have no idea what it means to have sex in your butt for a long period of time.
But I see you're intimately familiar with the prospect?

>They are hurting other people as these people
They're not.
>Because these people can now adopt children.
That's a good thing for those children

back to pol

Reproduction is the rationally know, natural purpose of sex. As I explained, when an act is not ordered towards this end, it is disordered, it is reducing the purpose of sex to pleasure, and I don't believe that pleasure in itself is enough to make anything morally acceptable.

This is why I say that if you do actually believe that pleasure is enough to make something morally acceptable, you must accept that fathers having sex with their sons is morally acceptable, or that men sucking off dogs is acceptable. You may believe that "consent between two adults" is all there is to sexual morality but that's not the road that I want to go down because it leads to a very nasty place. The father and adult son consenting to incest is in fact "two consenting adults."

>To say its not wrong would be to assume that pleasure in itself is a moral good
No, it's just not wrong. Doesn't mean it has to be morally good, which nobody ever claims.

>You may believe that "consent between two adults" is all there is to sexual morality but that's not the road that I want to go down

>I don't like the consequences of a reasonable argument so i just reject it

Oh come on? You seriously believe yourself? I'm not from /pol/ by the way. Last I checked the alt-right loves homosexuality.

I didn't condemn gay sex (although I believe that it's wrong to hurt your own body like that, but I also believe that everybody should be able to decide what they want to do with their own body as long as it doesn't affect anyone else) but I condemned anyone calling themselves 'homosexual'. So I mostly agree with you.

>>Because these people can now adopt children.
>That's a good thing for those children
Kill yourself

> rape is good for children
O rly?

You're absolutely correct. I do not like the consequences of a society treating gay sex as morally acceptable. What's wrong with that?

Don't cut yourself on that edge. Children with gay parents do just fine and either way they are way better off than in an orphanage.

You have not presented an argument other than 'I don't like it' (which isn't an argument).

>This is why I say that if you do actually believe that pleasure is enough to make something morally acceptable, you must accept that fathers having sex with their sons is morally acceptable
No it does not.
What do you think of a man and a woman engaging in sex for the purpose of pleasure? if you think that's alright, that must mean you also think a mother sodomizing his son is alright.
It's a hollow line of thinking

What is it with you that equate sex with morality? Two guys fucking inside an apartment has nothing to do with morals.
Everything that happens in nature is natural, including people subverting the "purpose" of sex in exchange for pleasure. Nothing disorderly about it

Do you ever do things purely out of pleasure? Because you skilfully disregarded this question before.
I of course know the answer - You do, you hypocrite.

Also, you're a buzzkill, maaan

>but I condemned anyone calling themselves 'homosexual'. So I mostly agree with you.
Now that I can get behind. Just like any ass that pleases me

>Everything that happens in nature is natural, including people subverting the "purpose" of sex in exchange for pleasure.
Except that the body is literally not made for homosexual behavior. It is not natural.

If you think that sex has nothing to do with morality then are you okay with incest and bestiality?

Not him, but incest is fine as long as people do it in private and don't get kids. Bestiality is fine as long as the animals doesn't get hurt.

It's the natural consequence of accepting homosexual behavior. I appreciate the honesty. It's a wonder why you guys don't go public with this view.

I have a ton of trouble with 3 days

>Except that the body is literally not made for homosexual behavior. It is not natural.
Well, nature finds a way. Nature has equipped us with both the desire, and the means to fulfill that desire.
We, as natural beings, with natural tools, and minds that nature has given us, have made homosexual acts possible and pleasurable.

And again, anything that happens in nature is, by the very definition, natural. We are not outside nature. Nothing we do is outside nature. Nothing that exists or happens is outside nature.

>Bestiality is fine as long as the animals doesn't get hurt.
You objectively have a mental disorder. What is your take on pedophilia? It's okay as long as the child is not hurt?

Because people would despise it when they see the slippery slope is real.

Thanks for your report

And the consequence of rejecting homosexual behaviour because it's only for pleasure would be rejecting heterosexual sex as well if it's not done with the intention of getting children

Except that the desire for the same sex is solely made in your brain. It has nothing to do with nature. Man has made homosexuality possible. it is not natural. You are lying to yourself.

>What is your take on pedophilia? It's okay as long as the child is not hurt?
That's pretty much impossible so i'm obviously against pedophilia.

>If you think that sex has nothing to do with morality then are you okay with incest and bestiality?
I suppose I should have been more clear. Not all sex has to do with morality, like sex between to willing adults. Better now?

But dude, gay sex inherently has nothing to do with incest or bestiality, besides both things having to do with intercourse

I've explained that sex is moral when it is ordered towards the creation of children. This does not mean that you must try to have children, it simply means that the bits should go where they're supposed to.

>humandkind is not natural
male animals fuck as well btw

>Except that the desire for the same sex is solely made in your brain. It has nothing to do with nature.
Are you trying to tell me my brain, and thoughts that arise from it, are not natural?

I don't understand

But how is it possible with animals?

>I've explained that sex is moral when it is ordered towards the creation of children
How is that moral? It's neither morally right nor wrong. It's just neutral.
> This does not mean that you must try to have children, it simply means that the bits should go where they're supposed to.
Yeah, that doesn't make sense.

I think sex is immoral when ordered toward the creation of children. Because of the untold horror and sorrow that life will bear down upon them. So I don't think bits should go where they're supposed to.

You can't dismantle this argument, because it's completely opinion based - just like yours.
Morality isn't objective. It's made in your little mind. Your natural brain, I might add

Here's The Quick Rundown

>Rothschilds bow to Bogdanoffs

>In contact with aliens

>Possess psychic-like abilities

>Control france with an iron but fair fist

>Own castles & banks globally

>Direct descendants of the ancient royal blood line

>Will bankroll the first cities on Mars (Bogdangrad will be be the first city)

>Own 99% of DNA editing research facilities on Earth

>First designer babies will in all likelihood be Bogdanoff babies

>both brothers said to have 215+ IQ, such intelligence on Earth has only existed deep in Tibetan monasteries & Area 51

>Ancient Indian scriptures tell of two angels who will descend upon Earth and will bring an era of enlightenment and unprecedented technological progress with them
>They own Nanobot R&D labs around the world

>You likely have Bogdabots inside you right now

>The Bogdanoffs are in regular communication with the Archangels Michael and Gabriel, forwarding the word of God to the Orthodox Church. Who do you think set up the meeting between the pope & the Orthodox high command (First meeting between the two organisations in over 1000 years) and arranged the Orthodox leader's first trip to Antarctica in history literally a few days later to the Bogdanoff bunker in Wilkes land?

>They learned fluent French in under a week

>Nation states entrust their gold reserves with the twins. There's no gold in Ft. Knox, only Ft. Bogdanoff

>The twins are about 7 decades old, from the space-time reference point of the base human currently accepted by our society

>In reality, they are timeless beings existing in all points of time and space from the big bang to the end of the universe. We don't know their ultimate plans yet. We hope they're benevolent beings.

Not if you fuck a dog or something. But if a woman lets a dog fuck her, I don't see the harm.

I'm not trying to say that gay sex is the same thing as bestiality or incest. What I'm saying is that when your bar for what is morally acceptable behaviors is merely "two consenting adult," then you must also accept an adult mother having sex with an adult son as morally acceptable.

Read my previous posts because I'm just repeating myself a lot now. The creation of children is the rationally known, purpose or 'telos' of sex.

The body wasn't "made" for anything. Brainlets always assume it's self-evident that the "objective purpose" of organisms is to reproduce, but this is tautological. Existing organisms have a propensity to reproduce, as a consequence of their evolutionary history (every one of their ancestors reproduced).
>Except that the desire for the same sex is solely made in your brain. It has nothing to do with nature.
Neither does art; it has nothing to do with survival and is a consequence of affluence and idleness created for pleasure. I guess art is "degenerate" too.

The creation of children is rationally known, natural purpose of sex, and for that reason it's not immoral. If you believe that morality is subjective then could you tell me that torturing a small child is wrong?

>then you must also accept an adult mother having sex with an adult son as morally acceptable.
Why wouldn't it be?
Because it hurts the feelings of whatever god you worship?

Morality isn't objective, user. You're just some animal who deceived himself into thinking he is something better. Nature and the world doesn't care for whatever you think is moral

>Existing organisms have a propensity to reproduce, as a consequence of their evolutionary history (every one of their ancestors reproduced).
This is factually wrong. I don't know what else to say. It is proven to be not the case.

Holy shit you're edgy. Don't cut yourself on that edge, Jimmy.