Talking of science

leopoldo's picture
Submitted by leopoldo on
Printer-friendly version

The statements in the Science page are all opinions.
There is no reference to research, there are no studies. Actually, there is evidence to support that humans can be and are "omnisex". Humans exist in all kinds of arrangements.

The problem starts with there being no agreement in science yet as to what is hardwired and was is learned. The consensus seems to go in waves, in a pendulum from "mostly hardwired" to mostly "learned".

I love karezza and "slow cool sex" (D. Richardson), I love all kinds of sex.

I think linking karezza with monogamy is a big stretch.
I know it is possible to maintain multiple deep intimate committed connections between men and women. I have done it for 35 years and keep on doing it.

The problem of dopamine addiction is very real, like the problem of alcoholism, like any addiction. Humans are a marvelous natural biochemical factory that we can draw on and "learn" to play with (as opposed to most other species). Breathing and meditation seem to be an access portal to the alchemy game, there are other portals as well. I don't believe it is true to conclude that because an addiction can develop from drinking alcohol, all wine drinking is a problem. The percentage of people prone to addiction is not high.

I say, if we are going to talk science, lets start?

With all due respect and appreciation for the wealth of information provided her.

We have science -

I'm not sure what you are asking, but if want articles with science please see our Psychology today blog, Cupid's Poisoned Arrow

You will find 60 or so articles all with multiple citations. The citations are embedded links. If an article links to another one of our articles, realize that it has citations embedded in its links.

[quote]I don't believe it is true to conclude that because an addiction can develop from drinking alcohol, all wine drinking is a problem. The percentage of people prone to addiction is not high.

First, we say nothing about sex addiction, so that article is irrelevant to anything we write about. This site and discuss internet porn addiction, which is an internet addiction - not a sex addiction. You can read why here: Porn Addiction Is Not Sex Addiction--And Why It Matters

Second the article you cite is poorly written and employs straw men and avoids discussing the current state of addiction neuroscience or the real experts in addiction. I suggest reading this article about ASAM's new definition of addiction AND follow the links to source material - Toss Your Textbooks: Docs Redefine Sexual Behavior Addictions: American Society of Addiction Medicine releases their sweeping new definition of addiction.

Third, we say nothing about percentage of young porn users becoming addicted, but you cannot compare alcohol to a natural reward. As you will see if your read the science, if given unlimited access to junk food, animals will gorge to obesity. 80% of adult Americans are overweight, 35% are obese. Eating to obesity leads to the same major brain changes as occur in drug addiction. Supernormal versions of natural rewards (such as Internet porn) are particularly enticing to the reward circuit. Combine that with the fact that many kids are starting daily Internet porn use at about age 11, and you have a set of circumstances never before encountered by our ancestors' brains.

The science for Internet porn addiction is found on - the site has about 1,000 pages. If you want clear explanations, science, and real addiction experts' opinions, you should read. - Start here for an overview of key concepts

You will need to follow ALL the embedded links and read the source material or articles with citations to fully judge the article and its validity. At the end of the article we expand on the basic concepts with this group of articles; (again you will need to read the embedded links to fully grasp the material)

For a more in-depth understanding of the science behind Internet porn addiction, I suggest reading these articles in the following sequence:

My request is to read what I have posted, before enganging in an argument about "sex addiction."


First thanks...I probably need to go update those introductory pages again. I try to pretend to myself that because I don't read them anymore, no one else does either. Wink

I'm curious about your comment about karezza and monogamy. This site and my book grew out of a question: "Why are my relationships so fragile?" Nothing on this site is a judgment of people who want multiple relationships. My quest was simply to find out what was making my relationships unravel...and it turned out that the answer was "biology" (plus changes in my environment: economic independence and easier divorce for women, increased focus on producing sexual exhaustion in partners via more orgasm, etc.).

In the process, I also learned why an approach like karezza (daily bonding behaviors, frequent intercourse and no focus on getting to climax) made the inclinations toward lasting monogamy easier from within. It "tiptoes around" biology's agenda and makes it easier for partners to see each other as increasingly adorable.

This is not to say that people can't use the ideas in other contexts. I just didn't happen to be asking that question, in part because I was curious if the desire to be monogamous was possible to cultivate. It was, and that in itself was such an amazing discovery that I had to write about it.

Hope this clarifies things.