Day 15

Submitted by 20UK on
Printer-friendly version

So I made it past two weeks, today marks probably the 20th time I've got this far, usually I relapse around the 3rd-4th week, either through sex or porn. My girlfriend has agreed to put our sex life on hiatus until around mid October, when I will have done 9/10 weeks ish, I think thats a decent enough mark, since people seem to be rebooting at 6-8 weeks on average.

I've been with reuniting for 1 year and 9 weeks, during that time I've learned a lot about this addiction and how all of our stories differ in ways, but at their core, they are all exactly the same. I've seen people recover, come and go, some people even rebooted on their first try, others are still pushing onward like myself.

But, one thing I strongly believe is that even though over the last year I've relapsed MANY times, the times I didn't, the weeks, days, hours and minutes I resisted have culmanated and helped me recover to the extent where my erections have improved, I no longer have severe ED, but sensitivity is still a bit of an issue, I still don't feel all that much during sex, this does improve the longer I go without porn though, so rebooting will likely fix that completely. (I hope! Anyone care to chime in on the penis sensitivity issue?)

Avoiding transexual porn and fantasies has completely obliterated my arousal for it, like literally, there is nothing for it anymore. I remember the "feelings" I got from it, but they just aren't there anymore. It's hard to believe that two years ago, I had gotten to a stage where the main thing that got me off was transexual porn, but now Its hard to put into words how the change has occured, arousal for real women has boosted to a level I'd forgotten due to years of viewing porn.

I'm stronger than I was last time, I can feel it. Just have to stay focused!

Comments

Great post. I like how you

Great post. I like how you said we're all living the same story at the core. Yeah we've all got different little pieces to the puzzle, and different things to unravel mentally, but in the end all the goals are the same; A healthy libido!!

That's AWESOME that transexual porn does nothing for you anymore. I can only imagine the weight that's taken off your shoulders. Really made me think about what f'd up crap used to get me off, and how little it does for me now.

Keep pushing. I think this is the time you make it to 10 weeks. And then bow chicka wow wow

Thanks for this, guys

I'm collecting notes for another article I want to write called, "Can You Trust Your Johnson?"

Men have been told that increases in penis circumference are the key to determining their sexual tastes. Turns out there's more to the picture. Even the sexologists are starting to get it. Here are informal remarks from one of the academic researchers who promulgated the idea about the penis-activity=orientation link.

Subject: Update on male bisexuality

As many of you know, my lab published a controversial 2005 article failing to find that men with bisexual identity were bisexually aroused when arousal was measured genitally rather than via self-report. Rather, they tended to have either heterosexual (i.e., far more arousal to women than to men) or homosexual (opposite pattern) in their arousal patterns. Most had homosexual arousal. This article was followed by a New York Times article that was good but had an inflammatory title "Straight, Gay, or Lying? Bisexuality Revisited." The implication of the title, given our findings, was that bisexual men are lying. The title was my fault, kind of, as I had conveyed to the reporter the quote that was common in some gay circles. It was unfortunate in two respects: first, I don't really think that a bisexual identified man with a homosexual arousal pattern is likely to be lying--although he may be misleading himself; second, it hurt some feelings in the bisexual community. I suppose it is an unanswerable question whether there would have been fewer hurt feelings and less controversy if the title had been different.

Anyway, a scientific update (bisexuality re-revisited):

In 2007 or so I was contacted by John Sylla, who is on this list and is the director of the American Institute of Bisexuality. John didn't agree with 2005 study's findings (or at least he didn't think they pertained to all or even most) bisexual men. But he respected our science, I think, and after considerable discussion, he recommended that we apply to the AIB for funding a follow up study that would differ from the 2005 study in two main ways. First, it would include an fMRI component, on top of genital and subjective measures. Second, we would do all we reasonably could to ensure that we would have a sample of men with high bisexual credibility. Not just identity and a Kinsey score in the 2-4 range but a history of sex and love with both men and women. (As I have said here before, I think that John Sylla exemplifies the scientific and intellectual values that we should all aspire to. Thanks John.)

So we did the study and have just published the genital results. Before I summarize the main findings, I'll just mention that we recruited most of our bisexual subjects from a Craigslist area where heterosexual couples advertise to have sex with men. We figured that men who answer such ads are really motivated to have sex with both men and women. So what did we find? Sure enough, the new results differed from the 2005 study, and the bisexual men did have a bisexual arousal pattern, on average. (Heads up to Ritch Savin-Williams, the Kinsey 1s also looked a little bit bi.) And we also didn't see much of a tendency in the new study for bisexual men to be more aroused by men than by women. So some bisexual-identified men do have a relatively bisexual arousal pattern. I don't believe I ever said that "bisexual men don't exist" or "bisexual arousal patterns don't exist among men," but it is possible I did, and if I did, I was wrong. (Hate to say those words even conditionally.)

How to reconcile the 2005 and the present study? There was nothing obviously wrong with the methodology of the 2005 study, although the inclusion/exclusion criteria of the bisexual men in the earlier study was less stringent. About two-thirds of potential bisexual participants the new study rejected due to their sexual/romantic history would have qualified in the earlier study. Which study applies to more bisexual men in 2011? We simply can't know at this point. There are definitely some bisexual-identified men with bisexual genital arousal and some bisexual-identified men without bisexual genital arousal. How many of each, we don't know.

Anyone sufficiently interested is encouraged to read Dan Savage's blog about the new study, characteristically sharp and witty.

A related matter is a recent study by Cerny and Janssen. We disagreed with some conclusions of theirs and published a commentary. Most important, we don't think their bisexual men had bisexual genital arousal as it is usually understood. They did include an interesting and potentially important methodological innovation, though, the use of an erotic stimulus consisting of a film of a man having simultaneous sex with a man and another woman. Their bisexual men (and ours) did react more strongly to this stimuli compared with heterosexual and homosexual men. We will be reporting our own results of this analysis in a future publication. What we think it might mean in the C&J study is in our commentary.