To be free from porn you need to watch porn (in a different way)

Discussion in 'Porn Addiction' started by ultrafabber, Jun 7, 2019.

  1. RicardoL

    RicardoL Fapstronaut

    51
    124
    33
    I support you Sir. One has to simply learn to hate the P. I have opened the home pages and I looked straight at it with a "positive affirmation" you took 10 years of my life you will NOT get anymore Mr. P. because this may not be for someone whose mind may not be strong enough. I have been a victim my entire life so i know how to zone myself out
     
    ultrafabber and Deleted Account like this.
  2. ultrafabber

    ultrafabber Fapstronaut

    1,364
    1,636
    143
    Fair questions. I believe they work because of the logic behind it, most importantly. I also know they work because i applied them on me first and i no longer have an interest for "straight" porn, the porn i had watched and been addicted to for 20 years, the porn i started my "sex life" with. Seeing a man with a woman puts me off now. Also stroking my dick puts me off now. I no longer have to fight those urges because i simply do not have them.

    It's like me fighting not to eat dirt.. i don't have to force myself not to eat dirt because i have no desire to eat dirt and the thought of eating dirt puts me off.

    To make sure one keeps his arousal, he can and should watch solo women, but without stroking his penis.

    Thank you. That is the right attitude. No more victimhood and running away. Even if one fails, at least you fail fighting instead of failing while running away (abstinence).
     
  3. ultrafabber

    ultrafabber Fapstronaut

    1,364
    1,636
    143
    So you didn't understand anything i said. How does this thread sound "like the alcoholic that only drinks socially" when the main idea is that people need to learn how to NOT be interested in "straight" porn? It's the complete opposite of "being happy watching porn".
     
  4. gingeralan

    gingeralan Fapstronaut

    409
    264
    63
    To prove it, you need to look at the problem material. Much more likely to lead to relapse or escalation. If it’s worked for you awesome, but don’t go suggesting it as a viable way for people with addictive personalities to deal with their problems
     
  5. ultrafabber

    ultrafabber Fapstronaut

    1,364
    1,636
    143
    Your comparison is very off. An alcoholic drinking socially still implies he likes alcohol (which isn't inherently bad, an alcoholic needs to dislike being drunk, not drinking) but that's another discussion.

    In this case we are talking about something (watching "straight" porn) that is fundamentally abnormal and has nothing one should like because there is another man there and the viewer should not like losing access to a woman he has sexual interest in.

    Yes you are more likely to relapse but at the same time you actively train to resist it and dislike it, whereas abstinence trains nothing and 1 day in abstinence or 100 days in abstinence you have the exact same "skill" to resist temptation.

    It's not that it worked for me. It's cue exposure and it works because it is a technique. I did it myself first because it would've been unethical to propose it without doing it myself first.

    It's a technique that works on ANY addiction. The way addiction is "treated" currently is wrong.
     
  6. gingeralan

    gingeralan Fapstronaut

    409
    264
    63
    I’m not even going to attempt your method, you are trying to use conscious thought (essentially fooling yourself you are repulsed by what you are looking at).

    This method sounds like something that would need professional support to ensure you didn’t fall back into old patterns, all the best and good luck to you, but I’m just gonna have to agree to disagree with you.
     
    Deleted Account likes this.
  7. ultrafabber

    ultrafabber Fapstronaut

    1,364
    1,636
    143
    You are most certainly welcome to disagree and not attempt this, what i am saying is that your reasoning for why this does not work was off because that comparison was incorrect.
     

Share This Page