Nicole Prause’s Unethical Harassment and Defamation of Gary Wilson & Others (Page 2)

Nicole Prause's Harassment 2

Introduction (as it appears on Page #1)

Legal counsel advised us to create these pages, which document Nicole Prause’s extensive campaign targeting those who point out possible harms of porn use or issues in the porn industry. “Sunshine” protects the community Prause harasses by preserving facts and permitting visitors and journalists to understand the truth for themselves. Indeed, these pages have already been cited in a defamation case against Prause:

“An extremely detailed and well documented history of Defendant’s with accounts from dozens of her victims/targets dating from 2013 to present, which spans over two thousand pages of documents and evidence, is available at https://bit.ly/32KOa3q.”

Nicole Prause has engaged in a veritable avalanche of false claims, defamation, malicious reporting, targeted harassment, baseless lawsuits, and threats of lawsuits. These pages document many of her smear tactics, although some incidents are not included because the targets fear further retaliation by her (Page 1, Page 2, Page 3, Page 4, Page 5, Page 6).

I (Gary Wilson) am perhaps her favorite target, but she has also targeted researchers, medical doctors, therapists, psychologists, colleagues from her short stint at UCLA, a UK charity, men in recovery, a TIME magazine editor, several professors, IITAP, SASH, Fight The New Drug, TraffickingHub, Exodus Cry, the academic journal Behavioral Sciences, its parent company MDPI, US Navy medical doctors, the head of the academic journal CUREUS, and the journal Sexual Addiction & Compulsivity. These incidents are labeled “OTHERS.” The incidences documented are arranged roughly in chronological order.

With respect to me, early on she falsely claimed that I was the subject of a “no contact” order. She first falsely accused me of stalking in 2013 when she and David Ley began targeting my website with their PT blog post, “Your Brain on Porn – It’s NOT Addictive.” When I challenged some of their false claims, Prause tried to intimidate me to remove my response by accusing me of stalking.

Since then, she has routinely weaponized this accusation against multiple people, embellished with false accusations of “death threats,” apparently to suppress exposure of her bias and malicious activity. In other words, her narrative of victimhood has escalated over the years as has her harassment.

In late 2020, she suddenly began claiming that she had been sexually assaulted in 2019, and that I was mysteriously responsible. She falsely claims that I posted her address on YBOP and that it led to her being grabbed on the street by a young man with a skateboard. She has not provided any objective evidence of either my having posted her physical address or her having been grabbed.

The irony is that Prause didn’t mind disclosing her actual home address to me when she filed bankruptcy to avoid paying me some ~$40K in attorney fees after the SLAPP ruling the court awarded me (see “Legal matters” below). She was confident that I would never reveal it (and I have no interest in doing so) – which shows just how absurd are her claims that I want to put her at risk. Incidentally, in her bankruptcy filing she swore that she has lived at that same address for more than 3 years. Yet she has simultaneously repeatedly claimed (lied) that she has moved multiple times to elude her (nonexistent) stalkers. Anything to feed the myth of her fabricated persecution!

Just to clarify, I have never encouraged anyone to harass Prause. Nor have I seen any evidence that anyone I know has harassed her or placed her at risk. She has a habit of supplying fabricated “evidence” that does not, in fact, establish her claims. For example, she treats her false reports to law enforcement, her C&D letters accusing people of things they haven’t done, her irrelevant screenshots, and her confederates’ unsworn statements as proof, although none supply fact-based evidence to support her claims.

It’s worth noting that Canadian investigative journalist Diana Davison who authored The Post Millennial expose’ on Prause, talked with her on the record for almost a week. In public comments under a related video Davison commented, “Prause said many things to me but none of her “evidence” actually supported her claims. In every instance the evidence reversed who the aggressor was. She basically accuses others of the exact things she herself did. I emailed with her, on the record, for almost a week.” In a second comment Davison said, “When I said I spent two weeks researching this that means I read every court document and every related document and spent a week emailing with Prause herself who cut me off after I started asking for actual evidence of harassment.” Prause responded by threatening to sue both Davison and The Post Millennial, although she did not follow through.

Legal matters

Although Prause and her confederates work hard to paint her as the victim, she is, in fact, the aggressor, both on social media and in legal matters. In court, this hasn’t worked out well for her. This page documents various legal victories over Prause, two of which involved me. I’ll summarize them.

In early 2020, Prause tried to bolster her self-constructed victimhood campaign by filing a baseless restraining order request against me. In her lie-filled filings, Prause went so far as to defame and dox my son. The court denied her request in August, 2020. The judge also granted my SLAPP (“Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation”) motion. This means he decided that Prause’s frivolous legal proceeding was an illicit attempt to suppress my free speech rights.

In short, her claims of victimhood could not be proved. In fact, at the hearing most of her evidence was tossed out as “hearsay,” “conclusory,” “irrelevant” and so forth. One week prior to the hearing, Prause went on Twitter to announce falsely that she had a “protective order” against me, inciting her enraged followers to harass me. Shortly before the hearing, her own attorney tried to resign because she had threatened him with legal action when he wouldn’t engage in unethical conduct. Press release

Next, she filed a defamation suit against me in Oregon. In January, 2021, the court found Prause had not made her case, and awarded me costs and a penalty (which Prause has refused to pay). Press release.

Incidentally, Prause has not paid either of the judgments I won. Instead, she has chosen a public campaign of defaming and threatening me – as if I am the wrongdoer instead of herself. She has also publicly denied that she lost either of the above legal proceedings. Astonishing.

As an aside, in early 2019 Prause filed a false declaration with the US Trademark authorities when she applied to grab my common law trademarks, claiming that she knew of no one who had the right to use my URL and trademarks. By this scheme, she sought to gain exclusive legal rights to my well established URL. This was a transparent effort to censor my entire site. Details. Clearly, it’s absurd to portray Prause as a victim, given a malicious campaign like this one.

After many hours of attorney time, I received my formal trademark registrations as well as the associated infringing URL, RealYourBrainOnPorn.com. The associated Twitter account @BrainOnPorn meanwhile conducted a reign of terror for 18 months. @BrainOnPorn exercised its supposed “collective” voice to tweet more than 1,000 defamatory and malicious statements (up to 170 tweets a day!) about anyone with whom Prause disagreed. Prause has denied involvement, but simple observation, correspondence from RealYBOP’s personnel, WIPO’s report, and considerable evidence point to her management of RealYBOP’s social media accounts and URL (evidence here).

Three separate parties have filed defamation suits against Prause over her untruthful, life-wrecking campaigns: Donald L. Hilton, Jr. v. Nicole Prause, et al., United States District Court for the Western District of Texas San Antonio Division, Case No. 5: 19-CV-00755-OLG; Alexander Rhodes v. Nicole Prause, et al., United States District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania, Case No. 2:19-cv-01366, and Aaron M. Minc, Esq v. Melissa A. Farmer and Nicole R. Prause, Case No: CV-20-937026 in Cuyahoga County, Ohio. (It appears that Farmer has agreed to a settlement, which will leave Prause as the sole defendant. No doubt the settlement involved a payout from Farmer’s insurance company. In an affidavit dated April 8, 2021, Farmer admitted her wrongdoing in retweeting Prause’s lies [PDF of retraction] Prause has stated that her own insurance company has declined to cover her for Minc’s suit against her, so she may be left directly responsible for any financial repercussions in that suit too. She still owes Wilson with respect to his victory against her.)

The first 2 cases settled in early 2021. Although the terms were not disclosed, it’s reasonable to speculate that the settlements were made possible by substantial payments from Prause’s insurance carrier (court documents reveal that funds were transferred to plaintiffs). The third and most recent defamation lawsuit suit is ongoing in Ohio. In that case, a colleague of Prause who republished Prause’s defamatory tweets is a co-defendant and now sadly exposed to liability for blindly joining in the rampage.

It’s worth noting that Prause herself has a growing record as a vexatious litigant. In the last year or so, she has filed more than half a dozen small claims suits, and, before that, some 40 malicious reports against dozens of people and organizations (yet, Prause has never prevailed in any lawsuit and all her fraudulent reports were dismissed). Prause has a long, well established history of trying to silence and disparage anyone she disagrees with by fabricating claims of her victimhood.

Multiple social media suspensions

In October, 2015 Prause’s original Twitter account @NicolePrause was permanently suspended for misconduct.

In March, 2018, Prause’s Quora account was banned for posting and misrepresenting, personal information.

In October, 2020 the @BrainOnPorn Twitter account, which Prause appears to have managed, was permanently suspended for targeted harassment and abuse.

In March, 2021, her second personal Twitter account, @NicoleRPrause was temporarily suspended for making “violent threats.”

I suspect that Prause was behind two more extinct Twitter accounts: @CorrectingWils1 and her first porn industry shill account @PornHelps.

Media outlets and others have been harmed by Prause’s lies

UK media outlet Scram News went out of business after it had to pay substantial damages because it had printed Prause’s defamatory lies. I’ve heard that VICE was subjected to a similar libel claim and had to remove false information provided to it by Prause, incurring substantial legal costs. I know first-hand that MEL magazine proposed a series of stories about her purported victim-hood. Yet, after further investigation, MEL declined to print Prause’s lies – and the magazine soon suspended publication entirely. Faced with legal action, The Daily Beast retracted Prause’s unproven allegations against specific individuals. Lastly, the University of Wisconsin-Lacrosse student newspaper was forced to remove an “investigative” article featuring Dr. Prause’s lies about me (U of W general counsel was involved).

Prause’s cozy relationship with the porn industry

Let’s start with the definition of a “shill”:

A shill…is a person who publicly helps or gives credibility to a person or organization without disclosing that they have a close relationship with the person or organization. … Shills may be employed by salespeople and professional marketing campaigns.

Keeping in mind the above definition, consider these many examples. Prause is unswervingly pro-porn, displaying a single mindedness that is remarkable in a scientist, given that scientists usually jealously guard their impartiality.

Three Twitter accounts – her own @NicoleRPrause account as well as the suspended @BrainOnPorn and @PornHelps (the latter 2 of which Prause appeared to manage) – consistently prop, or propped, up the porn industry and attacked its critics.

Prause also appears to have created 50+ Wikipedia sockpuppets (thus far) to bolster the industry’s interests and discredit critics with misleading edits, along with dozens of other aliases she uses to post on porn recovery forums.

Only a few years ago, Prause was promoting her connections with the porn industry, including serving on the board of a porn actors’ guild (APAG) and photos of her attendance at porn industry-insider events. Now, she’s trying to intimidate others not to mention any of those inconvenient facts because she has decided they harm her image.

In short, it’s not clear why any journalist (who is not shilling for the porn industry) would regard Prause as a credible source. Journalists have an obligation to readers to respect the conclusions of judges and other legal outcomes, and not to leave readers with the mistaken impression that the truth about Prause’s accusations is up for grabs or that her defamatory claims have validity. Having lost in the courts, she often attempts to rewrite history in the press and on Wikipedia with the help of biased editors.

It can be difficult for those she recruits to sift fact from fiction because her assertions are so “juicy” and her fabricated “evidence” so abundant. However, as my results in court demonstrate, I have gathered a lot of documentation and can refute her claims, if asked.

Not everyone who claims to be a victim is a victim. Some are simply engaged in attempts to manipulate their public image or to discredit and “no platform” (silence) anyone with whom they disagree. Think Trump. Journalists will want to reflect carefully before giving Prause a platform to amplify her fabrications and defamation.

Full Table of Contents (all 5 pages)

Prause Page #1

Prause Page #2

Prause Page #3

Prause Page #4

Prause Page #5

Prause Page #6

**Others – April 11, 2018: Prause falsely claims medical journal Cureus is a predatory journal and engages in fraud**

Nicole Prause attacked Cureus on Twitter over a paper that it had merely corrected (slightly). Prause claimed that Cureus is a predatory journal which engages in fraud. Both claims are false as predatory journals always charge for publication and are not PubMed indexed. Cureus does not charge authors for publishing, and it is PubMed indexed. Prause, as expected, provided no examples of Cureus engaging in fraud.

First, the Journal’s twitter account debunked Prause’s lies:

Next, John Adler, MD stepped in to refute Prause’s claims. She then falsely accused him of violating a non-existent no-contact order, blocked him on Twitter, and phoned in a spurious complaint of harassment to the Stanford’s Dean’s Office.

John Adler’s final response, before being blocked by Prause:

Under the retraction watch article we have a Prause comment, followed by Adler’s response:

As Adler pointed out, Prause was given a chance to publish a comment in his Journal but chose instead harass him and his journal on social media and with emails to Stanford University.

Update: July, 2019: John Adler, MD affidavit: Donald Hilton defamation lawsuit against Nicole R Prause & Liberos LLC.

May 20, 2018: Ley & Prause falsely claim that Gary Wilson & Don Hilton gave evidence in a case by Chris Sevier

As they often do, Ley and Prause team up to defame and harass those they disagree with. This time they play twitter tag in a pre-planned attack on Gary Wilson, Don Hilton, and Mary Ann Layden. We know it was a pre-planned event as the “evidence” they both tweeted was in a concurrent email with other untruths about Wilson sent from Prause to MDPI (Ley was cc’d on the email).

In Ley’s first tweet he sets things up for Prause by falsely stating that Chris Sevier was the “creator of porn is public health crisis legislation.” In reality, Utah was the first state to pass a resolution about porn and Sevier had nothing to do with it. Ley’s so-called proof is screenshot from this incredibly long page containing four years of court filings full of allegations in the case, Sevier v. Apple inc.

That’s right, Sevier is suing Apple over pornography. If you want to know more about this case or Sevier read this Daily Beast article: Chris Sevier, who wants to put a porn filter on every internet-connected device, jokingly calls himself ‘the mentally ill stalker who wants to marry his computer.’

Anyhow, Ley’s chosen excerpt, from 4 years of Sevier’s unhinged rantings in court filings, surrounds Sevier’s belief that “all Gay people are sex addicts”:

Why did David Ley choose this random excerpt about gays from Sevier’s January, 2014 court filing? So he and Prause could falsely assert that Wilson, Hilton, and Layden are anti-gay crazies.

Before we go any further, it must be mentioned that Chris Sevier seems to be universally believed by all who experience a brush with him to be a mentally unstable attention-seeker who chronically lies and harasses individuals and organizations associated with the so-called “anti-pornography movement.” Incidentally, “crazy” supporters are a time-honored strategy for tarnishing and impeding a cause.

Regardless of who his true masters may be, Sevier “makes shit up.” It has grown so bad that organizations (those genuinely behind the “porn as a public health crisis” movement) have been forced to take legal action against Chris Sevier. For example, the National Center on Sexual Exploitation (NCOSE) sent Sevier a cease and desist letter and published a statement denouncing Sevier’s actions. An excerpt:

The second matter relates to the author of the HTPA. The bill (sans resolution language) was developed by Chris Sevier, also known as Chris Severe. We have had a difficult relationship with Mr. Sevier over the last several years, to say the least. We have not found him trustworthy in our past dealings and therefore cannot rely on his assertions that those groups and those legislators that he claims are supporters of HTPA are actually in support. That is because, in the past, Sevier has falsely represented that our organization and NCOSE President Patrick Trueman and NCOSE Executive Director Dawn Hawkins are in support of his work. We have demanded that Sevier stop using our names.
In 2015, the office of a United States Senator alerted us to the fact that Sevier was promoting a version of the HTPA at the U. S. Capitol and was representing to U. S. Senate offices that Patrick Trueman was an author of the bill. This was false. A key legal assistant with that senator’s office also said that Sevier was visiting other senate offices claiming that his boss, the senator, was supporting the legislation, which was also false.
Several organizations have contacted us over the past couple years to complain that Sevier was also using their names without authorization and some of those organizations have complained that he was threatening them with legal sanctions when they refused to support him and his work. Several organizations have contacted us over the past couple years to complain that Sevier was also using their names without authorization and some of those organizations have complained that he was threatening them with legal sanctions when they refused to support him and his work.
In 2014, our general counsel had to write a cease and desist letter to Sevier demanding that he cease threatening our organization on various matters and reminding him that as a lawyer he is bound be definitive rules of professional responsibility.
In 2016 Sevier sued the state of Utah following the passage of the above-mentioned resolution developed by our office which declares pornography to be a public health crisis. The lawsuit was ostensibly over the issue of filters (a copy of the complaint is here). It included an extended footnote, part of which we are including here, which attacks NCOSE’s President Patrick Trueman and Executive Director Dawn Hawkins in bizarre terms…..

Very important set of facts: Don Hilton and Mary Ann Layden are on the board of directors of NCOSE and both regularly present at NCOSE conventions and NCOSE-related gatherings. How likely is it that they would be furthering Sevier’s “cause” by contradicting the position taken by NCOSE against Sevier?

With Ley’s set-up, Prause next tweets that Sevier claimed Gary Wilson and “these experts” were ready to testify:

No way! Hilton, Layden and Wilson never agreed to testify for Sevier, and certainly never agreed to testify that “all gay people are sex addicts.” It’s true that “Severe” emailed Gary Wilson in 2014. In Wilson’s response he suggested Severe visit his website for information. Wilson never agreed to testify, and did not respond to further emails from Severe. Don Hilton was asked if he had ever communicated with Sevier/Severe. He said he had not. Put simply, Sevier, and the Prause-Ley tag team, are lying.

With nothing but lies to back him up, Ley caps off the tag-team twitter like this:

Both Prause and Ley are obsessed cyberstalkers, with 300 tweets or more about Gary Wilson alone. Their assertions here are reprehensible and disgusting, yet fully in character.

Updates:

May 24-27, 2018: Prause creates multiple sock-puppets to edit the MDPI Wikipedia page (and is banned for sock-puppetry & defamation)

In an earlier section we recounted Prause’s harassment of MDPI and its journal Behavioral Sciences. We also chronicled Prause’s long history of employing multiple fake usernames on Wikipedia (which violates its rules) to harass many of the individuals or organizations listed on this page. For example:

Prause’s latest Wikipedia barrage occurred from May 24th to the 27th and involved at least 6 fake usernames (called “sock-puppets” in Wikipedia jargon). The following links take you to all the edits by these particular usernames (“user contributions”):

The first four usernames edited the MDPI Wikipedia page, while 3 of the 6 edited the Nofap Wikipedia page, the Sex Addiction page and the Pornography Addiction page. All 3 pages are obsessions of Prause. Even Wikipedia recognized the usernames as belonging to the same person because all the names were banned for “sock-puppetry.” We can be sure it was Prause editing the MDPI page because:

1) The most recent batch of emails between MDPI and Nicole Prause started on May 22, with MDPI notifying all involved that one minor technical correction and an editorial would be forthcoming. This enraged Prause who responded with a string of demands and threats, followed by false accusations and personal attacks.

2) The edits began with user NeuroSex whose only edit before May 24th was an unsuccessful attempt to have other Wikipedia pages link to the Nicole Prause Wikipedia page (February, 2018). From the NeuroSex talk page:

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, your addition of one or more external links to the page Nicole Prause has been reverted.

3) The Wikipedia content revolves around one of Prause’s ongoing obsessions: discrediting and attempting retraction of the paper co-authored by Gary Wilson and US Navy doctors: Is Internet Pornography Causing Sexual Dysfunctions? A Review with Clinical Reports (Park et al., 2016)

4) All the Wikipedia edits mirror concurrent Prause tweets and her emails to MDPI (many of which Wilson has seen).

5) The sock-puppets claimed to possess private MDPI emails – which they wanted to post to the MDPI Wikipedia page. Here’s what NeuroSex said in her comment:

I have images that verify each of the claims (e.g., email from the publisher, email from the listed editor, etc.). RetractionWatch and other outlets are considering writing reviews of it as well, but I cannot be sure those will materialize. How is best to provide such evidence that verifies the claims? As embedded image? Written elsewhere with images and linked?

Note: In her concurrent emails to MDPI, Prause cc’d RetractionWatch, apparently to threaten MDPI with public retaliation. Another “NeuroSex” edit (lies) related to Gary Wilson and to Park et al., 2016:

NeuroSex edit #1: Gary Wilson was by <ref>{{cite web|title=paid over 9000 pounds|url=https://www.oscr.org.uk/downloadfile.aspx?id=160223&type=5&charityid=SC044948&arid=236451}}</ref> The Reward Foundation to lobby in the US on behalf of anti-pornography state declarations.

The claim that Wilson received a dime from The Reward Foundation is a lie. For the whole story see: May – July, 2018 – In emails, in the ICD-11 comments section, and on Wikipedia, Prause and her sockpuppets falsely claim that Wilson received 9,000 pounds from The Reward Foundation

6) Wikipedia created two special pages for the sockpuppets of NeuroSex/Prause (several more socks are still being investigated):

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Wikipedia_sockpuppets_of_NeuroSex
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/NeuroSex/Archive

—————————————–

Update, 6-18-18: Prause created another Wikipedia username to edit the MDPI wikipedia page – https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/185.51.228.245 – and added the following:

In 2016, another MDPI journal, Behavioral Sciences, published a review paper claiming pornography caused erectile dysfunction. Six scientists independently contacted MDPI concerned about fraud and other issues in the article, initiating an independent review by the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE). COPE recommended retracting the article.^[31] The listed paper editor, Scott Lane, denied having served as the editor. Thus, the paper appears not to have undergone peer-review. Further, two authors had undisclosed conflicts of interest. Gary Wilson’s association with The Reward Foundation did not properly identify it as an activist, anti-pornography organization.
Wilson also had posted extensively in social media that the study was “by the US Navy”, although the original paper stated that it did not reflect the views of the US Navy. The other author, Dr. Andrew Doan, was an ophthalmologist who ran an anti-pornography ministry Real Battlefield Ministries, soliciting donations for their speaking.^[32] Further, the Committee on Publication Ethics determined that the cases were not properly, ethically consented for inclusion. MDPI issued a correction for some of these issues,^[33] but has refused to post corrections for others to date as described by Retraction Watch.^[31]

Several of the above lies debunked:

There were not 6 scientists – only Prause contacted MDPI.
My association with The Reward Foundation was fully disclosed from the beginning. As explained earlier, my affiliation with The Reward Foundation (TRF) was always clearly stated, both in the initial Behavioral Sciences article and in the recent correction (the original PubMed version). The purpose of the newly published correction was to counter Dr. Prause’s incessant defamatory claims that I receive money from TRF, and that I make money from my book (my proceeds for which, in fact, go to the charity)
I posted that the paper involved 7 US Navy doctors. The Navy had no problems with my comments.
Dr. Andrew Doan is both an MD and a PhD (Neuroscience – Johns Hopkins), is the former of Head of “Addictions and Resilience Research” in the Department of Mental Health at the Naval Medical Center. (He has since been transferred and promoted, and has different responsibilities.) Doan has authored multiple papers on behavioral addiction/pathologies relating to technologies (in some cases with a co-author of the paper you have written about here). In short, he is a qualified senior author. Those other papers can be found here: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/?term=doan+klam. His non-profit, Real Battlefield Ministries (RBM), did not discuss pornography prior to publication of the paper. Even if RBM had presented on pornography it would not have been a conflict of interest.
As described above, COPE’s decision was hypothetical and did not apply to our paper as the US Navy doctors more than complied with their Naval Medical Center – San Diego’s IRB consent rules. The Naval Medical Center San Diego’s IRB policy does not consider case reports of less than four patients in a single article to be human subject research and does not require the patients to consent to inclusion in an article. Although the researchers were not required to obtain consent, for two cases, verbal and written consents were obtained. In the third case where anonymity was unlikely to be compromised, no written consent was obtained. Incidentally, at Dr. Prause’s insistence, after the paper was published, the actions of the Navy co-authors with respect to this paper were thoroughly reviewed in an independent Navy investigation.
Result? I have a copy of the official report by a Navy lawyer affirming that the co-authors complied with all the IRB’s rules.

——————————————

NeuroSex edit #2: In 2015, the MDPI journal ”[[Behavioral Sciences (journal)|Behavioral Sciences ]]” published a paper ”Is Internet Pornography Causing Sexual Dysfunctions? A Review with Clinical Reports”. It was widely promoted during political attempts in the USA to define pornography as a public health hazard. However, it was soon discovered that many fraudulent statements appeared in the paper, often claiming the opposite of what a cited study had described

Gary Wilson comment:

To begin with, NeuroSex (Prause) got the publication date wrong: our paper was published in August, 2016, not in 2015. Second, our paper was not widely promoted. Third, no fraudulent statements were made and we cited all references correctly. A bit of background is in order.

Pre-MDPI history

The story of Prause’s efforts relating to the paper that was ultimately published as Park et a l., 2016 actually begins before the involvement of MDPI and Behavioral Sciences. An earlier, much shorter version of the paper, with the same authors and author affiliations as it had when later submitted to Behavioral Sciences, was first submitted to Yale Journal of Biology and Medicine (YJBM). It’s worth reviewing certain conduct in connection with this paper when it was under consideration by YJBM.

One of the 2 reviewers of the paper gave it a scathing review with 70+ criticisms, and it was duly rejected. Around the time that YJBM rejected the paper, a “Janey Wilson” began harassing my book publisher, Commonwealth Publishing, and the registered charity to which I donate all of my share of my book’s proceeds (recounted in this section). I am the author of Internet Pornography and the Emerging Science of Addiction.

Note: The submission to YJBM was the only place my affiliation with the charity, The Reward Foundation (TRF), could be found, as it was nowhere public. In other words, apart from the Board of TRF and myself, only the YJBM editor and its two reviewers knew about this affiliation. And yet, “Janey” claimed to have evidence of this affiliation, and used my affiliation to fabricate various allegations of wrongdoing by TRF and me.

Later, Dr. Prause submitted her scathing YJBM review with 70+ criticisms to a regulatory board (as part of an effort to have the published paper retracted), thus confirming she had indeed provided the YJBM with an unfavorable review of the paper. (Further evidence that she was a YJBM reviewer turned up during the Behavioral Sciences submission process, as recounted below.) Incidentally, Prause’s actions are a clear violation of COPE’s rules for peer reviewers (Section 5 of the “Guidelines on Good Publication Practice”), which require reviewers to keep confidential anything they learn through the review process.

YJBM was informed of (1) the harassing behavior engaged in by “Janey,” (2) “Janey’s” possible true identity, and (3) the fact that “Janey” may have violated COPE’s rules for peer reviewers by making public confidential information about me.

The paper was promptly accepted by YJBM…and then not published in that journal after all, due to the journal’s decision that it was too late to make the requested revisions and still meet the print deadline for YJBM’s special “Addiction” issue.

Behavioral Sciences

A revised and updated version of the paper was then submitted to the journal Behavioral Sciences. After a few rounds of reviews and further restructuring it was accepted as a review of the literature, with case studies. Its final form was quite different from the original YJBM submission.

During this process, the paper was reviewed by no fewer than 6 reviewers. Five passed it, some with some suggested revisions, and one harshly rejected it (It was Prause again, as she later revealed).

Phase one of this process unfolded as follows: The paper was reviewed twice, one of them a harsh rejection, one favorable. Puzzled by the harsh rejection, Behavioral Sciences sent the paper out for review to 2 other reviewers. These reviewers passed the paper. Behavioral Sciences cautiously rejected the paper but allowed the authors to “revise and resubmit.” As part of this process, the authors were given all of the comments by the reviewers (but not their identities). The reviewers’ concerns were thoroughly addressed, point by point (available upon request).

From these comments, it became evident that the “harsh reviewer” of the Behavioral Sciences paper had also reviewed the paper at YJBM. About a third of the 77 points raised did not relate to the Behavioral Sciences submission at all. They referred to material that was only present in the earlier version of the paper, the one that had been submitted to YJBM.

In other words, the harsh reviewer had cut and pasted dozens of criticisms from a review done of an earlier iteration of the paper at another journal (YJBM), which no longer had any relevance to the paper submitted to Behavioral Sciences! This is highly unprofessional. Moreover, Prause eventually revealed herself as the author of these criticisms in her complaint to the medical boards (see above), in which she shared her YJBM review of the obsolete version of the paper. (Apparently, she never realized the YJBM paper had been accepted by YJBM once her review was disqualified.)

Incidentally, when Prause was asked to review the paper at Behavioral Sciences she apparently did not reveal that she had already reviewed the paper at another journal. It would have been standard reviewer etiquette to reveal her earlier review effort.

Let me summarize Prause’s multiple objections to our paper. Again, 25 or so of them had nothing whatsoever to do with the Behavioral Sciences paper Prause had been asked by Behavioral Sciences to review. These items referred to its first submission at YJBM. This alone should disqualify the entire review from further consideration.

Yet, we carefully combed through each comment looking for any useful insights, and wrote a comprehensive response to all 77 comments for Behavioral Sciences and its editors. Almost all of the remaining 50 critical comments were either scientifically inaccurate, groundless, or were simply false statements. Some were repetitive. In short, while reviewers’ comments always improve any paper to some degree, there really wasn’t the need to “fix” much of the paper itself in light of Prause’s comments. What we did do was strengthen the paper itself with 50 more citations, lest other readers make any of the same errors she had.

The paper was rewritten and revised. Next, two more reviewers reviewed and passed it with various suggestions, including a suggestion to restructure it as a “review with case studies.” Satisfied that all legitimate concerns had been addressed, Behavioral Sciences published the paper.

Immediately after publication in August, 2016 Prause insisted that MDPI retract Park et al., 2016. The professional response to scholarly articles one disapproves of is to publish a comment outlining any objections. Behavioral Sciences’s parent company, MDPI, invited Prause to do this. She declined. That’s right, Prause was given full opportunity to critique the paper in Behavioral Sciences – and she ran the other way.

Instead she unprofessionally turned to threats and social media (and most recently the Retraction Watch blog) to bully MDPI into retracting Park et al. In addition, she informed MDPI that she had filed complaints with the American Psychological Association and the doctors’ medical boards. She also pressured the doctors’ medical center and Institutional Review Board, causing a lengthy, thorough investigation, which found no evidence of wrongdoing on the part of the paper’s authors.

Prause concurrently complained repeatedly to COPE (Committee on Publication Ethics). COPE finally wrote MDPI with a hypothetical observation relating to (Prause’s narrative about) consents obtained for the case studies in the paper, and a question about retraction. MDPI thoroughly re-investigated the consents obtained by the doctors who authored the papers, as well as US Navy policy around obtaining consents. Written consents had been obtained for the two extensive case studies, and the third case study involved so little identifying information that a written consent was deemed unnecessary. On this basis, MDPI declined to retract the paper.

For the whole story, see this page: Prause’s efforts to have Behavioral Sciences review paper (Park et al., 2016) retracted.

May, 2018: **Prause lies about Gary Wilson in emails to MDPI, David Ley, Neuro Skeptic, Adam Marcus of Retraction Watch, and COPE**

In the May, 2018 email exchanges with MDPI & COPE, Prause copied bloggers who are positioned to damage the reputations of MDPI in the media, if they choose. Ley blogs on Psychology Today and has often served as the Mouth of Prause. Neuro Skeptic has a popular blog that disparages legitimate (and sometimes dubious) research. Adam Marcus writes for Retraction Watch. Prause also copied Iratxe Puebla, who works for COPE, an organization that addresses publication ethics. Already, Adam Marcus of Retraction Watch has taken the bait without adequate investigation.

In her defamatory articles, tweets, and Quora posts Prause has knowingly and falsely stated that I (Gary Wilson) claimed to be “professor in biology” “doctor” or a “neuroscientist.” I was an Adjunct Instructor at Southern Oregon University and taught human anatomy, physiology & pathology at other venues. Although careless journalists and websites have assigned me an array of titles in error over the years (including a now-defunct page on a website that pirates many TEDx talks and describes the speakers carelessly without contacting them) I have always stated that I taught anatomy & physiology. I have never said I had a PhD or was a professor. Prause told the same lie to the email recipients:

PRAUSE EMAIL #1 (5-1-2018)

On Tue, May 1, 2018 at 10:11 PM, Nicole Prause >
Additionally, Mr. Wilson is now using this publication to claim to be a doctor online to unsuspecting patients (attached).
NP
Nicole Prause, Ph.D. Liberos LLC: www.liberoscenter.com

Below is the screenshot Prause uses to “prove” that I have misrepresented my credentials (again, this Gary Wilson page no longer exists). Note: Until Prause produced her “proof,” I had never seen this site and had never communicated with its hosts, never uploaded the page in question and never removed it. Thus I certainly never provided a bio, or claims of “professorship.”

I taught at Southern Oregon University on two occasions. I also taught anatomy, physiology and pathology at a number of other schools over a period of two decades, and was certified to teach these subjects by the education departments of both Oregon and California. I do not seek speaking engagements and have never accepted fees for speaking. Moreover, YBOP accepts no ads, and the proceeds from my book go to a registered charity.

On the “about” page the Keynotes.org website said that it is not an agency and that anyone could upload a video and speaker bio: Keynotes.org is not an agency, but rather, a media site…. Keynotes.org is crowdsourced and fueled by TrendHunter.com, the world’s largest trend spotting website. Again, I’ve never uploaded anything to the site, and I have no idea who uploaded this page (or ordered it removed).

Thus, it is even possible that Prause uploaded this page, with my TEDx talk and a purposely inaccurate bio, in order to fabricate her desired “proof” of misrepresentation – and then removed it. After 7 years of continuous harassment and cyber-stalking, faked documents, libelous assertions, hundreds of tweets, and dozens of usernames with hundreds of comments, nothing would surprise us.

The above screen-shot was part of a larger article by Prause where she falsely claimed that I was fired from Southern Oregon University: March, 2018 – Libelous Claim that Gary Wilson Was Fired. In her article, which was posted on a pornography-related site and Quora, Prause published redacted versions of my Southern Oregon University employment records, falsely stating I was fired and had never before taught at SOU. As with her claims surrounding The Reward Foundation, Prause lied about the true content of what’s in the redacted documents. By the way, David Ley also tweeted the Prause article several times, saying I was fired from SOU (screenshots on the page).

In the end, Prause was permanently banned from Quora for harassing me and the porn-blog site removed Prause’s libelous article.

——————

In an email to MDPI, COPE, Ley, Neuroskeptic, Adam Marcus of Retraction Watch and others Prause falsely claimed that I had received money from The Reward Foundation.

PRAUSE EMAIL #2 (5-22-2018)

Liberos <http://www.liberoscenter.com> On 22/05/2018 20:48, Nicole Prause wrote:
It appears Wilson did receive money from The Reward Foundation. Attached is The Reward Foundation Annual Report. Per item C6 referring to travel that describes Gary Wilson’s travel totaling 9,027 pounds.
I request that any correction include this financial COI, or time be allotted to properly demonstrate that this was not a financial conflict of interest.
Nicole Prause, Ph.D. Liberos

Prause is lying. I have never received any money from The Reward Foundation. I forwarded Prause’s claim to Darryl Mead, Chair of The Reward Foundation, who debunked Prause’s claims here. As thoroughly explained in that section Gary Wilson donates the proceeds of his book to The Reward Foundation. Wilson accepts no money, and has never received a dime for any of his efforts. YBOP accepts no ads and Wilson has accepted no fees for speaking.

Well, it’s 2019 and Prause is finally being for defamation. In a sworn affidavit filed in Federal Court, Gary Wilson stated (under penalty of perjury) that (1) Nicole Prause used a false identity (Janey Wilson) to defame and harass Wilson, his publisher, and The Reward Foundation, (2) that Prause lied in emails, on Wikipedia and in public comments when stating that Gary Wilson received financial compensation from The Reward Foundation.

See full affidavit: July, 2019: Gary Wilson affidavit: Donald Hilton defamation lawsuit against Nicole R Prause & Liberos LLC. Relevant excerpts from Gary Wilson’s sworn affidavit, which is part of the Dr. Hilton’s defamation lawsuit filed against Dr. Prause.

Put simply, Nicole Prause has engaged in provable defamation against Wilson and Dr. Hilton. In addition to Wilson, 8 other victims of Prause have filed sworn affidavits with the court describing defamation, harassment, and malicious reporting to governing bodies and agencies (just the tip of the Prause iceberg).

——————

PRAUSE EMAIL #3 (5-22-2018)

In many of her emails to MDPI (and others), Prause mentioned her “77 criticisms” and falsely claimed that they had not been addressed. This was just the latest:
On Tue, May 22, 2018 at 9:36 AM, Nicole Prause>
I provided a 77 point critique prior to publication that was, true to the predatory journal lists MDPI appeared on, was ignored.
Nicole Prause, Ph.D. Liberos LLC: www.liberoscenter.com

This means Prause was one of two reviewers of the Yale Journal of Biology and Medicine submission – and thus “Janey Wilson.” As explained, many of the 77 so-called problems were carelessly copied and pasted from Prause’s review of the YJBM submission; 25 of them had nothing to do with the Behavioral Sciences submission. In other words, the only reviewer to condemn the paper had cut and pasted dozens of criticisms from a review done at another journal (YJBM), which no longer had any relevance to the paper submitted to Behavioral Sciences. This is highly unprofessional.

Even apart from that glaring irregularity, few of the 77 problems could be considered legitimate. Yet, we carefully combed through each comment mining for useful insights, and wrote a comprehensive response to all comments for Behavioral Sciences and its editors. Almost all of the remaining 50 critical comments were either scientifically inaccurate, groundless, or were simply false statements. Some were repetitive. The authors provided MDPI with a point by point response to each so-called problem.

For the whole story see: Prause’s efforts to have Behavioral Sciences review paper (Park et al., 2016) retracted

The 50+ suspected Prause sockpuppet aliases are listed below (but there’s no reason to think this list is complete).

May, June 2018: In emails to Retraction Watch, in the ICD-11 comments section, and on Wikipedia, Prause and her sockpuppets falsely claim that Wilson received 9,000 pounds from The Reward Foundation

Gary Wilson makes no money from his website or the sales of his book. All of Wilson’s proceeds from his book go to a UK charity (The Reward Foundation). It promotes education and research on porn’s effects. Since 2015 Prause has been harassing The Reward Foundation as herself and as “Janey Wilson.” For details see – 2015 & 2016: Prause violates COPE’s code of conduct to harass Gary Wilson and a Scottish charity.

Starting in May, 2018 Prause added a new wrinkle to her claims, namely that, “The Reward Foundation (RF) paid Wilson 9,027 pounds.” This is completely false, even though there’s absolutely nothing wrong with Wilson being paid by anyone for anything. The crazy part is that Wilson donates the proceeds from his book to the RF. In other words, Prause is claiming that Wilson gives money to the RF so they can give it back to him at a later date. Why Wilson would choose to play trans-Atlantic ping pong with his money in this way, Prause has yet to explain. Bottom line: Prause is lying.

This all started with Prause’s email to journal publisher MDPI, COPE, David Ley, Neuroskeptic, Adam Marcus & Ivan Oransky of Retraction Watch (and others) that, based on the charity’s recent public filing (with a name redacted, as is standard), expense reimbursements paid to a charity officer were in fact paid to Wilson. Prause, wrongfully assumed (and publicized) that Wilson’s name was behind the redaction when it wasn’t!

Liberos <http://www.liberoscenter.com> On 22/05/2018 20:48, Nicole Prause wrote:
It appears Wilson did receive money from The Reward Foundation. Attached is The Reward Foundation Annual Report. Per item C6 referring to travel that describes Gary Wilson’s travel totaling 9,027 pounds.
I request that any correction include this financial COI, or time be allotted to properly demonstrate that this was not a financial conflict of interest.
Nicole Prause, Ph.D. Liberos

Two days later, one of Prause’s seven wikipedia sockpuppets attempted the following edit on MDPI Wikipedia page, assigning Wilson a fabricated, defamatory reason for receiving the money (that he had never, in fact, received):

NeuroSex edit #1: Gary Wilson was by <ref>{{cite web|title=paid over 9000 pounds|url=https://www.oscr.org.uk/downloadfile.aspx?id=160223&type=5&charityid=SC044948&arid=236451}}</ref> The Reward Foundation to lobby in the US on behalf of anti-pornography state declarations.

NeuroSex linked to a redacted document, claiming that Gary Wilson was paid 9,000 pounds by Scotish charity The Reward Foundation. Two days earlier Prause falsely claimed to journal publisher MDPI (and others) that, based on the charity’s recent public filing (with a name redacted, as is standard), expense reimbursements paid to a charity officer were in fact paid to Wilson. Prause has not checked her facts, and she is mistaken (again). Wilson has never received any money from The Reward Foundation. Gary Wilson forwarded Prause’s claim to Darryl Mead, Chair of The Reward Foundation. His response is above:

From: Foundation Reward <[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, May 24, 2018 8:17 AM
To: gary wilson
Subject: Re: Concerns raised to the attention of COPE by Nicole Prause. Manuscript ID behavsci-133116
Dear Gary:
I have looked into this. Prause said:
On 22/05/2018 20:48, Nicole Prause wrote:
It appears Wilson did receive money from The Reward Foundation. Attached is The Reward Foundation Annual Report. Per item C6 referring to travel that describes Gary Wilson’s travel totaling 9,027 pounds.
I request that any correction include this financial COI, or time be allotted to properly demonstrate that this was not a financial conflict of interest.
Nicole Prause, Ph.D. Liberos <http://www.liberoscenter.com>
This is a reference to our 2016-17 Annual Accounts. A version of the accounts with identity redaction was published by the Office of the Scottish Charity Regulator and can be downloaded at https://www.oscr.org.uk/search/charity-details?number=SC044948#results, copy attached. This redaction process is done by OSCR without input from the named charity.
The relevant section with redaction reads as per this screen shot.
The individual referred to in C6 is Darryl Mead, the Chair of the Reward Foundation. I am that person and I made the claim for reimbursement of travel and other costs.
The original document reads as follows:
There is no reference to Gary Wilson in any part of the expenditure for the Reward Foundation because there were no payments to him.
With best wishes,
Darryl

In summary, Prause falsely accused Wilson of receiving funds from The Reward Foundation for a fabricated purpose. She then publicized this falsehood to MDPI, COPE, RetractionWatch, and others, using the redacted document she submitted. Then sockpuppet NeuroSex attempted to post these lies to Wikipedia, which failed.

Update, 6-7-2018:

For no reason in particular, Prause posted a comment on the ICD-11 about Gary Wilson. [Would be readers must create a username to view comments.] In this comment Prause repeats the above lies:

Licensed therapist Staci Sprout (who Prause has repeatedly harassed) replied to Prause’s false statements:

Prause not only repeated her original lie, she added several more of her usual lies about Wilson (all debunked on this very page). Prause also says that she has filed a second complaint against Staci Sprout with Washington. This part is true, as second harassing complaint was filed against Sprout and immediately dismissed.

In the 6 years since Prause’s cyber-aliases started claiming that Wilson was reported to the police, Prause has failed to provide any documentation of her purported police reports. As for the LAPD & UCLAPD, both have said that Prause never filed anything with their departments. In October, 2018 Gary Wilson filed a freedom of information request with the FBI and the FBI confirmed that Prause was lying: no report has ever been filed on Wilson. See – November, 2018: FBI affirms Nicole Prause’s fraud surrounding defamatory claims. Gary Wilson has been patiently waiting since July, 2013 (1) to discover what exactly he was reported for, (2) to be contacted by “the authorities.” Neither has occurred because Prause is lying.

Over the next few days Nicole Prause posted 3 more libelous comments on the ICD-11 attacking Gary Wilson and continuing to assert falsely that he is a paid employee of The Reward Foundation. Darryl Mead, the Chair of The Reward Foundation, eventually responded (see above).

As expected, Prause responded with several more lies and personal attacks. See this section for more on Prause’s ICD-11 comments.

Update: In a sworn affidavit filed in Federal Court, Gary Wilson stated (under penalty of perjury) that (1) Nicole Prause used a false identity (Janey Wilson) to defame and harass Wilson, his publisher, and The Reward Foundation, (2) that Prause lied in emails, on Wikipedia and in public comments when stating that Gary Wilson received financial compensation from The Reward Foundation.

See full affidavit: July, 2019: Gary Wilson affidavit: Donald Hilton defamation lawsuit against Nicole R Prause & Liberos LLC. Relevant excerpts from Gary Wilson’s sworn affidavit, which is part of the Dr. Hilton’s defamation lawsuit filed against Dr. Prause.

Put simply, Nicole Prause is engaged in provable defamation (see you in the upcoming defamation lawsuits: 1, 2).

————————–

March 3, 2020: Cyberstalker RealYBOP has posted about 300 tweets about me. In this example she lies about the Reward Foundation. Her defamatory tweet appears to be claiming that The Reward Foundation “paid” to have an article placed in The Sunday Times. That’s a lie. In reality, The Times paid TRF to write an article. TRF did not solicit The Times – The Times solicited TRF. I guess Nikky is mad because The Times isn’t interested in her opinions on porn.

I make no money from his website or the sales of his book. All of Wilson’s proceeds from his book go to a UK charity (The Reward Foundation). It promotes education and research on porn’s effects. Since 2015 Prause has been harassing The Reward Foundation as herself and as “Janey Wilson.” For details see – 2015 & 2016: Prause violates COPE’s code of conduct to harass Gary Wilson and a Scottish charity, and May – July, 2018: In emails, in the ICD-11 comments section, and on Wikipedia, Prause and her sockpuppets falsely claim that Wilson received 9,000 pounds from The Reward Foundation.

In my 2 sworn affidavits filed in federal defamation suits I chronicle Prause libelous claims and ongoing cyberstalking of The Reward Foundation, my publisher, the Scottish Charity register, and MDPI:

——————–

Others – May 24-27, 2018: Prause creates multiple sock-puppets to edit the Nofap Wikipedia page

As described above, from May 24th to the 27th, 2018 Prause employed six fake usernames to edit the Wikipedia pages of her ongoing obsessions: MDPI, Nofap, Sexual Addiction, and Pornography Addiction. Even though Prause’s main target was MDPI, two of her sock-puppets took the time to attack Nofap, with edits and defamatory comments. As she has done in Twitter comments and in personal attacks on Alexander Rhodes, Prause called members of Nofap dangerous misogynists.

User contributions – Neuromancer – Prause’s sock-puppets added a paper that Prause has been obsessively posting on social media: grad student Kris Taylor’s dissertation on 15 comments from reddit/nofap: I want that power back: Discourses of masculinity within an online pornography abstinence forum (2018).

23:55, 9 March 2018 (diff | hist) . . (+400)‎ . . m NoFap ‎ (Added a new scientific paper about the group)

See this back and forth between Prause and bart concerning the Kris Taylor’s lightwieght paper.

User contribution – 130.216.57.166

(cur| prev) 22:30, 24 May 2018‎ 130.216.57.166 (talk)‎ . . (20,725 bytes) (+357)‎ . . (→‎Beliefs) (undo)
(cur| prev) 22:19, 24 May 2018‎ 130.216.57.166 (talk)‎ . . (20,368 bytes) (-298)‎ . . (→‎Beliefs) (undo) (Tag: references removed)
(cur| prev) 22:17, 24 May 2018‎ 130.216.57.166 (talk)‎ . . (20,666 bytes) (-10)‎ . . (→‎Beliefs) (undo)
(cur| prev) 22:17, 24 May 2018‎ 130.216.57.166 (talk)‎ . . (20,676 bytes) (-7)‎ . . (→‎Beliefs) (undo) (Tag: references removed)
(cur| prev) 22:16, 24 May 2018‎ 130.216.57.166 (talk)‎ . . (20,683 bytes) (+11)‎ . . (→‎Beliefs) (undo)
(cur| prev) 22:15, 24 May 2018‎ 130.216.57.166 (talk)‎ . . (20,672 bytes) (+173)‎ . . (→‎Beliefs) (undo)
(cur| prev) 22:11, 24 May 2018‎ 130.216.57.166 (talk)‎ . . (20,499 bytes) (+64)‎ . . (→‎Beliefs) (undo)
(cur| prev) 22:06, 24 May 2018‎ 130.216.57.166 (talk)‎ . . (20,435 bytes) (+67)‎ . . (→‎Beliefs) (undo)

User contributions – Suuperon

20:17, 25 May 2018 (diff | hist) . . (+114)‎ . . NoFap ‎ (→‎Reception: Fixed tag, added descriptor)
20:16, 25 May 2018 (diff | hist) . . (+367)‎ . . NoFap ‎ (→‎Reception: Added peer-reviewed study about the verified dangers of NoFap)
20:14, 25 May 2018 (diff | hist) . . (-492)‎ . . NoFap ‎ (→‎Reception: Removed a reference to an unpublished “study” only in a German newspaper and not published anywhere.)

User contributions – 209.194.90.6

03:28, 24 May 2018 (diff | hist) . . (+379)‎ . . Pornography addiction ‎ (→‎Support groups: NoFap community has recently raised security concerns paralleling Incels and due to this paper discovering considerable misogynist attacks in NoFap. I suggest removal, but at least should warn people community is not safe.)

Prause’s assertions are nonsense as Nofap is simply an online forum for people trying to quit porn – hardly a threat to anyone. Prause’s sock-puppets added a paper that Prause has been obsessively posting on social media: grad student Kris Taylor’s dissertation on 15 comments from reddit/nofap: I want that power back: Discourses of masculinity within an online pornography abstinence forum (2018). See this back and forth between Prause and bart concerning the Taylor joke of a paper.

Another Prause edit involved deletion of a yet to be published paper by researcher Alec Sproten – How Abstinence Affects Preferences (2016). Sproten’s preliminary results, like a handful of other studies, reported significant benefits by participants who ceased using porn. Excerpts from Sproten’s article:

Results of the First Wave – Main Findings
The length of the longest streak participants performed before taking part in the survey correlates with time preferences. The second survey will answer the question if longer periods of abstinence render participants more able to delay rewards, or if more patient participants are more likely to perform longer streaks.
Longer periods of abstinence most likely cause less risk aversion (which is good). The second survey will provide the final proof.
Personality correlates with length of streaks. The second wave will reveal if abstinence influences personality or if personality can explain variation in the length of streaks.
Results of the Second Wave – Main Findings
Abstaining from pornography and masturbation increases the ability to delay rewards
Participating in a period of abstinence renders people more willing to take risks
Abstinence renders people more altruistic
Abstinence renders people more extroverted, more conscientious, and less neurotic

Unfortunately, Prause’s deletion of the Sproten study has not yet been reversed, and the Kris Taylor paper remains. More evidence that Wikipedia editors game the system, and sockpuppets rule.

September, 2019: Another likely Prause sockpuppet inserts a hit-piece: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Turnberry2018

RealYBOP tweeting the same article a day earlier provides additional evidence that Prause is responsible for the above edit.

RealYBOP appears to be Prause. See: RealYourBrainOnPorn tweets: Daniel Burgess, Nicole Prause & pro-porn allies create a biased website and social media accounts to support the porn industry agenda (beginning in April, 2019)

The 50+ suspected Prause sockpuppet aliases are listed below (but there’s no reason to think this list is complete).

Others – May 24-27, 2018: Prause creates multiple sock-puppets to edit “Sex Addiction” & “Porn Addiction” Wikipedia pages

The previous two sections chronicle Prause’s Wikipedia-based attacks on two of her favorite targets: MDPI and Nofap. In Prause’s recent 4-day Wikipedia blitz three of her sockpuppets edited two other objects of her disdain: the Wikipedia pages on “Sexual Addiction” and “Pornography Addiction” (which her numerous sockpuppets had previously edited over the years). In her many edits Prause attacks familiar targets such as Dr. Todd Love, Fight The New Drug, therapist Staci Sprout, Dr. Patrick Carnes, CEO of MDPI, the American Society for Addiction Medicine, and a protein – DeltaFosB.

Here we present selected edits and remarks from three sockpuppets, followed by our comments:

User contributions: NeuroSex

00:55, 25 May 2018 (diff | hist) . . (-162)‎ . . Sexual addiction ‎ (Undid revision 833320211 by Stacisprout (talk) Book by a non-expert replicating other texts already given. Appears purely promotional) (Tag: Undo)

Comment: Once again, Prause is attacking therapist Staci Sprout, who Prause harassed and defamed in a groundless complaint filed with Washington State Dept. of Health. The State of Washington dismissed the empty complaint (without an investigation) and closed the case. Prause has also attacked Staci Sprout on Twitter and on the ICD-11 comment page for “Compulsive sexual behaviour disorder.”

———–

User contributions: Suuperon

02:16, 25 May 2018 (diff | hist) . . (-172)‎ . . Sexual addiction ‎ (→‎Controversy: info-graphic was created by Mormon group Fight The New Drug, an anti-pornography organization. Not neutral and does not accurately reflect history, such as including individuals with no field influence

Comment: Prause’s harassment and defamation of Fight The New Drug (FTND) involves 50 or more tweets, reporting FTND to the State of Utah, posting on the FTND Facebook page that FTND is guilty of science fraud & that she has reported Gary to the FBI twice, and writing 2 op-eds attacking FTND – both of which were addressed and discredited in these 2 responses:

———–

User contributions: Suuperon

02:20, 25 May 2018 (diff | hist) . . (-3,460)‎ . . Sexual addiction ‎ (→‎Mechanisms: Large section about FOSB made no mention of link to sex and had about 7 broken links (numbers clearly pasted from some other source, not properly attributed))
02:01, 25 May 2018 (diff | hist) . . (-356)‎ . . m Sexual addiction ‎ (→‎Mechanisms: Lead claim of “wide acceptance” as addiction in humans linking to only animal studies is more activism on this entry. False

Comment: The above two edits and comments involve DeltaFosB, which Prause sockpuppets have been complaining about for over 3 years now (see 2 of Prause’s earlier posting about DeltaFosB: “PatriotsAllTheWay” & “NotGaryWilson”). This is nothing new as Prause and David Ley’s 2014 opinion piece on porn addiction railed against DeltaFosB – with the foremost DeltaFosB researcher saying that Ley & Prause’s commentary sounded like a “bad Saturday Night Live parody.”

Contrary to Prause’s claim, DeltaFosB is present in humans, and with high levels seen in the reward centers of human cocaine addicts (post-mortem) who suddenly died. Put simply, all the neuroscientists studying its mechanisms agree that DeltaFosb is involved with multiple physiological functions, including sensitization to sexual activity and addiction.

———–

User contributions: 185.51.228.242

03:19, 24 May 2018 (diff | hist) . . (-391)‎ . . Pornography addiction ‎ (→‎Further reading: Carnes’ books were cited three times without clear rationale. Removed two.)

Comment: Over the last few years Prause has defamed and harassed Patrick Carnes, Stefanie Carnes and their educational organization (IITAP) with at least 100 comments on social media and elsewhere. As documented here, Prause went so far as to post several groundless comments stating that all IITAP practitioners were openly sexist and assaultive to scientists.

———–

User contributions: 185.51.228.242

03:16, 24 May 2018 (diff | hist) . . (-1,180)‎ . . Pornography addiction ‎ (→‎Diagnostic status: Todd Love is described as an “addiction researcher”. He has zero research training and no data publications. He represents another false appeal to authority to create a false narrative. The reference describing him falsely as a scientist is removed.) (Tag: references removed)

Comment: Nicole Prause’s original Twitter account was permanently suspended shortly after she violated Twitter’s rules by (twice) posting the Dr. Todd Love’s personal information. Love is the lead author on this 2015 paper, “Neuroscience of Internet Pornography Addiction: A Review and Update” (Love, et al.), which critiqued two highly publicized EEG studies by Nicole Prause. The Love paper has been well received from the scientific community. It already has 59 citations listed on Google Scholar. Here Prause is attacking Love’s 2015 paper, arguing that he is not a researcher. What Prause omits is that Love et al., 2015 had 4 other authors including Matthias Brand – who has published more neurological studies on internet pornography than anyone on the planet; Christian Laier – who has published over 10 studies on internet pornography; and Raju Hajela MD, MPH, one of the leading addiction physicians in the world.

———–

User contributions: 185.51.228.242

03:14, 24 May 2018 (diff | hist) . . (-603)‎ . . Pornography addiction ‎ (→‎Diagnostic status: Repetitive. Exact same ASAM claim was described in section above.)
03:11, 24 May 2018 (diff | hist) . . (+106)‎ . . Pornography addiction ‎ (→‎Symptoms and diagnosis: ASAM is a fringe group that also advocates “tanning” addiction. Requires recognition that, just below, no other org shares ASAM view)

Comment: Here Prause’s sockpuppets told 2 (more) bare-faced lies. First, the American Society for Addiction Medicine is hardly a fringe group as its members include 3,000 medical doctors who specialize in addiction treatment. ASAM has been around longer than the DSM. Second, ASAM never stated that “tanning addiction” exists. Just another lie. What angers Prause is that America’s top addiction experts at ASAM released their sweeping new definition of addiction in 2011. ASAM’s definition of addiction explicitly stated that sexual behavior addictions exist and must be caused by the same fundamental brain changes found in substance addictions. From the ASAM FAQs:

QUESTION: This new definition of addiction refers to addiction involving gambling, food, and sexual behaviors. Does ASAM really believe that food and sex are addicting?
ANSWER: The new ASAM definition makes a departure from equating addiction with just substance dependence, by describing how addiction is also related to behaviors that are rewarding. … This definition says that addiction is about functioning and brain circuitry and how the structure and function of the brains of persons with addiction differ from the structure and function of the brains of persons who do not have addiction. … Food and sexual behaviors and gambling behaviors can be associated with the ‘pathological pursuit of rewards’ described in this new definition of addiction.

The World Health Organization is edging into alignment with The American Society of Addiction Medicine. The beta draft of the world’s most widely used medical diagnostic manual, The International Classification of Diseases (ICD-11), contains a new diagnosis suitable for diagnosing porn and sex addiction: “Compulsive Sexual Behavior Disorder.”

————-

Update: On June 5th yet another Prause sockpuppet appeared and attempted to edit the Sexual Addiction Wikipedia page – User contributions: 71.196.154.4

15:33, 5 June 2018 (diff | hist) . . (+584)‎ . . Talk:Sexual addiction ‎ (→‎Semi-protected edit request on 5 June 2018: new section) (current)

The sockpuppet’s comments on the Sexual Addiction Talk Page perfectly mirror Prause’s usual baseless drivel about “sex addiction” being rejected, and that sex/porn addiction can be explained away by either high libido or shame:

Add first line to “is a proposed model” or “is an hypothesized model”. “Addiction” is a scientific model that has not been agreed on by any scientific body, so presenting “sex addiction” as “a state” misrepresents the state of the science, which largely has rejected this model (relative to, for example, impulsivity model, high drive model, social shame model, etc.). 71.196.154.4 (talk) 15:33, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

A Wikipedia editor asks Prause for reputable sources to support her claims:

Please provide a WP:VERIFIABLE source to support your claim.–DBigXray 19:16, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

Prause’s sockpuppet did not respond.

As for Prause’s claim that individuals with either sex addiction or porn addiction do not have addiction, they simply have high libidos: there are 2 dozen studies that falsify the claim that sex & porn addicts “just have high sexual desire”. In addition, 40 neuroscience-based studies (MRI, fMRI, EEG, neuropsychological, hormonal) have reported neurobiological changes in sex & porn addicts that mirror those found in substance abusers. Shame doesn’t cause addiction-related brain changes. Not coincidentally, a Google Scholar search for the phrase “social shame model” finds only single paper – Prause’s 2016 opinion piece that was thoroughly discredited in this extensive critique. The “social shame model” exists only in the mind of Prause and her chorus of sockpuppets.

————

Update: On September 3rd yet another Prause sockpuppet edited the Sexual Addiction Wikipedia page – User Contributions: HighFlyer1976. The only edit by the sockpuppet:

21:37, 3 September 2018 diff hist +244‎ User talk:Wallyworld1998 ‎ Fake news posts in Sex Addiction article.

Calling it “fake news” HighFlyer1976 deleted an edit that sated that the ICD-11 had overtaken the ICD-10. Prause often mimics Donald Trump’s behavior and verbiage.

———-

Update: On November 26th yet another Prause sockpuppet edited the Sexual Addiction Wikipedia page – User Contributions: TestAccount2018abc. The only 2 edits by the sockpuppet:

23:50, 26 November 2018 diff hist +592‎ Talk:Sexual addiction ‎ →‎Semi-protected edit request on 26 November 2018
20:45, 26 November 2018 diff hist +1,006‎ Talk:Sexual addiction ‎ →‎Semi-protected edit request on 5 June 2018

In addition, TestAccount2018abc posts on the Sexual Addiction Talk Page, once again raging againts the new ICD-11 diagnosis of “Compulsive Sexual Behavior Disorder”. The Prause sockpuppet argues with regular editor Tgeorgescu (who is actually quite anti porn and sex addiction – but not extreme enough for Nikky): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Sexual_addiction

Semi-protected edit request on 26 November 2018
Information about the ICD-11 draft was added, but did not include that (1) The ICD cannot be accepted as a diagnosis anywhere yet, and the earliest in the USA is 2022 and (2) the World Health Organization specifically stated that they did not find evidence that sex was addictive. Given that this article is “sex addiction”, that must be included for this to be accurate, otherwise it is misleading to people who do not know the differences between a compulsion and an addiction (there are many). “But the UN health body stops short of lumping the condition together with addictive behaviours like substance abuse or gambling, insisting more research is needed before describing the disorder as an addiction.” Dr. Geoffrey Reed, WHO ^[1] TestAccount2018abc (talk) 20:44, 26 November 2018 (UTC)
Sexual addiction is an umbrella concept, which people use in different meanings. The point you’re making is explained under Sexual addiction#ICD. Tgeorgescu (talk) 21:16, 26 November 2018 (UTC)
Addiction is not an “umbrella” concept. The article quote shows the head of the World Health Organization disagreeing with you too. Here neuroscientists describe the differences neurologically (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/add.13297) and here by symptom (https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10508-017-0991-8). You are an anti-sex activist who should not be editing this page, there is literally no science supporting your claim. Addiction and compulsivity are different models, and sex addiction appears nowhere in the ICD-11 intentionally, by WHO’s own statement. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TestAccount2018abc (talk • contribs) 23:50, 26 November 2018 (UTC)</small
Cool down buddy, I’m not an anti-sex activist, through my edits I have decidedly opposed sexual pseudoscience, but I am also prepared to give the other side the benefit of the doubt when the matters aren’t settled yet. You have read too few of what I wrote inside Wikipedia and you’re jumping to conclusions. If that’s the way to treat your allies I wonder how you treat your enemies. So, yeah, I know that compulsion is different from addiction. However, this article is not only about sexual addiction, but about a lot of stuff. Instead of having ten different articles with roughly the same content, we have one article which covers them all. This is not hard to get from reading it. Tgeorgescu (talk) 17:01, 28 November 2018 (UTC)
This impression was based on a review of your bio, which has extensive commentary about your biblical beliefs, not your scientific background in this area. So the critique of the article and the likely source of the bias seems fair. The article already states in one place exactly what I suggest, your addition reverts back to mischaracterize again. I did not request a separate entry at any time, only that this entry be scientifically accurate. With your last addition, it is no longer scientifically accurate by my, or the World Health Organization’s, estimation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.194.90.6 (talk)17:12, 28 November 2018 (UTC)
First, Wikipedia does not require editors to be experts/scientists, that’s a thing for Citizendium. Wikipedia requires editors to WP:CITE WP:SOURCES, that’s all: you have sources, you have everything, don’t have sources, don’t have anything. Second, editing Wikipedia is a cooperative enterprise. If I were the only one to write this article, I would write it differently, but since everybody can edit, I have to make allowance for their doubt. Third, the matter of sexual addiction vs. CSBD is not settled yet: ICD is not a diagnosis manual, it is a manual of codes, so that a French MD understands the diagnosis of a Mexican MD.
There has been a discussion about adding TCM codes to ICD, but in fact WHO does not say that a specific code is a thing, so if TCM would be included in the ICD it would not mean that TCM got scientifically validated. Fourth, I have quoted a source (Ley), which says that ICD does not include sexual addiction, and I tried to briefly explain his point. Perhaps you might try to suggest a different wording, I’m all ears. Fifth, don’t cast aspersions based on insufficient data. More precisely, you did not bother to read my opinions, e.g. that in respect to mental health insurance money, DSM is king, not ICD, and since addictions got purged out of DSM there is unlikely to be a diagnosis of porn addiction (or sex addiction, for that matter). Tgeorgescu (talk) 21:10, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

Notice: in the above exchange a second Prause sockpuppet enters into the fray – “Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.194.90.6“. With so many puppets she can’t keep track of which sockpuppet is editing Wikipedia!

The 50+ suspected Prause sockpuppet aliases are listed below (but there’s no reason to think this list is complete).

May 30, 2018: Prause falsely accuses Fight The New Drug (FTND) of science fraud, and implies that she has reported Gary to the FBI twice.

In a pre-planned attacked, Nicole Prause and four of her usual side-kicks posted one star “reviews” on the Fight The New Drug Facebook page (reviews by the flying monkeys, all posted within a few hours each other: Tammy Johnson Ellis [link now deleted], Anthony Xavier Diaz [link now deleted], Russell Stambaugh, Patrick Powers [link now deleted]).

This screenshot of a rant by non-academic Prause is self-explanatory. For the record, Gary has never received notice of any of Prause’s fictitious FBI or police reports, or done anything to merit them, and FTND relies on an array of respected academic scientists and peer-reviewed research. (Addendum: Gary Wilson filed a freedom of information request with the FBI and the FBI confirmed that Prause was lying: no report has ever been filed on Wilson. See – November, 2018: FBI affirms Nicole Prause’s fraud surrounding defamatory claims)

As for Prause’s assertion that Wilson is a misogynist, her only bit of proof is that Wilson accidentally wrote “Miss Prause” in his reply to a comment on YourBrainRebalanced where Prause (as RealScience) asks Wilson: “How small IS your penis Gary?”

Prause’s claim that “their neuroscience is simply false” is just more fiction from a practiced liar. Prause provides no examples of ‘false neuroscience,” while a reading of a FTND article such as “How Porn Can Become Addictive,” reveals peer-reviewed studies supporting every claim. Another example, found in the FTND FAQs (Is Porn Addiction Even A Real Thing?), contains links to about 200 supporting peer-reviewed papers.

Prause’s falsehoods concerning FTND are exposed in her Salt Lake Tribune Op-Ed attacking FTND. On the surface it appears legitimate as 7 PhD buddies of Prause signed off on it. However, upon closer examination we find that:

It provides no examples of misrepresentation by “Fight The New Drug”, or anyone else.
None of the claims are supported by citations.
The 8 neuroscientists cited zero neuroscience-based studies.
None of the researchers has ever published a study involving verified “porn addicts.”
Some who signed the Op-Ed have histories of fervently attacking the concept of porn and sex addiction (thus demonstrating stark bias).
Most had collaborated with the lead author of the Op-Ed (Prause) or her colleague (Pfaus).

This 600-word Op-Ed is chock full of unsupported assertions meant to fool the lay public. It fails to support a single assertion as it cites only 4 papers – none of which have anything to do with porn addiction, porn’s effects on relationships, or porn-induced sexual problems.

I and several other experts in this field debunked its assertions and empty rhetoric in this relatively short response – Op-ed: Who exactly is misrepresenting the science on pornography? (2016). Unlike the “neuroscientists of the Op-Ed,” we cited several hundred studies and multiple reviews of the literature, including many of the following:

55 neuroscience-based studies (MRI, fMRI, EEG, neuropsychological, hormonal) providing strong support for the addiction model.
29 recent literature reviews & commentaries by some of the top neuroscientists in the world, supporting the porn-addiction model.
40 studies link porn use/sex addiction to sexual problems and lower arousal to sexual stimuli.
Over 75 studies link porn use to less sexual and relationship satisfaction.
Over 55 studies reporting findings consistent with escalation of porn use (tolerance), habituation to porn, and even withdrawal symptoms.
Over 85 studies linking porn use to poorer mental-emotional health & poorer cognitive outcomes.
At least 25 studies falsify the claim that sex & porn addicts “just have high sexual desire”
Over 40 studies link porn use to “un-egalitarian attitudes” toward women and sexist views.

Prause’s inability to cite a single study misrepresented by FTND was confirmed in this twitter thread where user SB challenges Prause to cite and describe the studies FTND misrepresented. Prause had no answer:

Realizing she’s been exposed, Prause searches SB’s twitter feed for anything she can use, settling for this bizarre personal attack. YBOP has been waiting over 3 years for Prause to name a single study that FTND or Gary Wilson has misrepresented. Still waiting.

Updates:

Nicole Prause falsely claiming to have reported Wilson is now part of of a defamation case, and is described in this affidavit: July, 2019: Gary Wilson affidavit: Donald Hilton defamation lawsuit against Nicole R Prause & Liberos LLC.
December, 2018: Gary Wilson files an FBI report on Nicole Prause

Others – Summer, 2018: Porn industry shills Prause & David Ley attempt to smear renowned psychologist Philip Zimbardo

Non-academic Prause attacks renowned Stanford psychologist Philip Zimbardo:

Prause attacked Zimbardo for multiple reasons – all related to her support of the porn industry:

The Demise of Guys?: Philip Zimbardo: Excellent TED talk on (as the title says) the “demise” of young men. Zimbardo speaks of excessive Internet use (porn and video games) as “arousal addiction.”
Philip Zimbardo’s Psychology Today blog post “Is Porn Good For Us or Bad For Us?” (2016).
His book – Man, Interrupted: Why Young Men are Struggling & What We Can Do About It.
Two articles co-authored by Phil Zimbardo and Gary Wilson:

——————

Publisher of Skeptic magazine, Michael Shermer, calls out an article about Zimbardo’s famous “Stanford Prison experiment” as a fraud. Prause trolls him, lying about Zimbardo “misrepresenting the science”:

Note – Prause has never provided a single example of Zimbardo misrepresenting science or research. She can’t, because he hasn’t. In fact, the concerns Zimbardo raised about the ill effects of problematic internet porn use and excessive internet gaming have both since been codified as disorders in the upcoming ICD-11, which is the diagnostic manual of the World Health Organization.

The only “source” attempting to discredit Zimbardo came through a David Ley blog post, which was pure spin, and completely debunked here: Dismantling David Ley’s response to Philip Zimbardo: “We must rely on good science in porn debate” (March, 2016).

Shermer posted several defenses of the Stanford Prison Experiment. Tellingly, Prause says nothing in response:

Zimbardo responds to critics here – What’s the scientific value of the Stanford Prison Experiment? Zimbardo responds to the new allegations against his work.

More Prause & Ley attacks, with childish memes and falsehoods:

Not so, Zimbardo was aligned with the preponderance of research, but not the 5 cherry-picked studies you tweet over and over and over….

More falsehoods from Prause:

Unlike Prause, Zimbardo backed up his claims with citations. What’s missing from all the above tweets? A single example of a Zimbardo misrepresentation. Nada.

As chronicled here and elsewhere Dr. Prause has a long history of misrepresenting her own and others’ research. In addition, she chronically mischaracterizes the current state of porn research, while repeatedly tweeting a few cherry-picked (and often flawed) outlier studies. If you want to judge for yourself, this page contains links to hundreds of studies and several reviews of the literature: current state of the research on Internet porn addiction and porn’s effects.

—————————

September, 2019: RealYBOP twitter (run by Prause & Daniel Burgess), pins the following tweet to its profile:

Update: David Ley is now being paid by the porn industry to promote their websites, while he fervently denies the harms of porn. See – Ongoing – David J. Ley is now collaborating with porn industry giant xHamster to promote its websites and convince users that porn addiction and sex addiction are myths.

—————————–

October, 2019: David Ley and Prause/Daniel Burgess (RealYBOP twitter) are at it again. RealYBOP disparages Phil Zimbardo, yet again. As porn industry shills Ley, Prause & RealYBOP often disparage Zimbardo because he has exposed porn’s negative effects on young people.

Non-academics Ley & Prause are also jealous of Zimbardo’s fame, success and influence.

July 6, 2018: “Someone” reports Gary Wilson to the Oregon Psychology Board, which dismisses the complaint as unfounded

This malicious reporting effort appears to be part of a larger, concerning pattern of filing baseless regulatory complaints about actual therapists, as documented elsewhere on this page. Fortunately regulators are not easily taken in by such spiteful tactics.

This has to be Nicole Prause’s handiwork. Who else? (PDF Documenting Prause’s Malicious Reporting Pattern & Malicious Use of Process).

Updates: Prause maliciously reporting Wilson is now part of of a defamation case, and is described in this affidavit: July, 2019: Gary Wilson affidavit: Donald Hilton defamation lawsuit against Nicole R Prause & Liberos LLC.

October, 2018: Ley & Prause devise an article purporting to connect Gary Wilson, Alexander Rhodes, Gabe Deem to white supremacists/fascists (Prause attacks & libels Alexander Rhodes & Nofap in the comments section).

On October 28, 2018 David Ley published a Psychology Today blog post co-authored with Nicole Prause called “Why Fascists Hate Masturbation: The rise of nationalism coincides with anti-masturbation movements.” Within a few days Psychology Today forced Ley to change the inflammatory title to “Is One Sexual Behavior Triggering Certain Groups? Masturbation may well be one of the healthiest human sexual behaviors.” (Update: David J Ley is now being paid by the porn industry to promote their websites, while he fervently denies the harms of porn. See – Ongoing – David J. Ley is now collaborating with porn industry giant xHamster to promote its websites and convince users that porn addiction and sex addiction are myths.

—————————–

The term “fascist” when misused as it is here, is “hate speech.” The post implies that all of the people named in it are both “fascists” and anti-masturbation. While this may constitute clever public relations spin in light of the immediately preceding reprehensible attack on a temple in Pittsburgh, it is shocking that Ley apparently used the tragedy to promote his well known pro-porn agenda by attempting to tie “fascism” and “anti-masturbation” to a range of people who have addressed the risks of overuse of internet pornography and related concerns.

Ley’s proposed associations bear no relation to the facts. For example, Wilson is the author of a book entitled Your Brain On Porn, and the host of this website with the same name. The focus of both is on the risks of internet porn overuse, not on masturbation. A few excerpts from Ley’s article targeting Gary Wilson (yourbrainonporn.com) and Gabe Deem (RebootNation):

Another excerpt where Ley tries to connect Gary Wilson to David Duke (so sickening):

Ironically, Ley has, when it suited him, claimed masturbation, not internet pornography, is the true cause of young men’s rising problems with sexual performance and sexual attraction to real partners. Thus, it is especially disingenuous for him to now claim that those who oppose his views are “anti-masturbation.” See this piece about the absurdity of the sexology claim that the cause of rising sexual dysfunctions in millennials is masturbation. See Sexologists Deny PIED by Claiming Masturbation Is the Problem.

Let’s start with Prause’s admission that she helped David Ley with his defamatory blog post.

The pattern for Psychology Today blog posts co-created by Prause & Ley is for Ley to open the comments section (which he often doesn’t) and for Prause (and her aliases) to police the comments, which usually entails Prause attacking detractors and mischaracterizing the state of the research.

We have reproduced Prause’s comments below. Where appropriate we included the comments of her targets. As you can see, Prause employs her usual mix of personal attacks, falsehoods, faux victim-hood and misrepresentations of studies:

What Were You Thinking?

Submitted by PornHelp Team on October 28, 2018 – 12:43pm
This is disgraceful. Of all of the weekends to publish a conspiracy theory equating wanting to quit porn to fascism and Antisemitism, this isn’t the one (really, there’s never a good time for this kind of half-baked nonsense, but especially not now).
Let’s be clear. People seek help with out-of-control porn use for lots and lots of different reasons. Many have no religious motivation at all, but rather look for help because of tangible impacts porn use is having on their lives. For others, religious belief (including, for some, the teachings of Judaism, fwiw) does play a role.
Implying porn skepticism amounts to a Nazi plot is not only morally abhorrent, it’s also demonstrably false. Dr. Ley should know better than to make such irresponsible claims.

NoFap could be next; Hate group

Submitted by Nicole Prause on October 28, 2018 – 3:29pm
His timing is perfect. Hate speech results in hateful acts. NoFap has been promoting hate speech for years, including against specific women. There are scientific papers published about the misogyny in NoFap groups. Incel’s have murdered. I fully expect one of these murders will someday be from these anti-masturbation anti-porn groups. HLey is calling attention to their hate speech while they still have time to try to correct. It is past time to stop promoting hate speech on your platforms…or this is what one of your followers will do next. Stop promoting fascism, misogyny, and antisemitism.

Submitted by Nicole Prause on October 29, 2018 – 1:59pm
There is a peer-reviewed article on some of the misogyny in the NoFap community. Search: “‘I want that power back’: Discourses of masculinity within an online pornography abstinence forum”
This means it was reviewed by independent scientists confidentially. There is nothing wrong with choosing for yourself not to masturbate, but they spread intentionally fake news and are a for-profit. For example, I study the effects of porn on the brain and have some of the largest samples in this area in high-impact journals. If they mention my research at all, it’s usually stating we found the opposite of what we actually found. These are not trustworthy sources and are promoting discrimination against protected groups.
strange logic

Submitted by Geoff Goodman Ph.D. on October 28, 2018 – 5:21pm
So, Ley’s argument seems to be the following:
Nazis and KKK were against masturbation.
The NoFap community is against masturbation for 90 days.
Ergo, the NoFap community are Nazis and KKK members?
Strange logic.

Misogynist in chief

Submitted by Nicole Prause on October 28, 2018 – 5:34pm
Geoffrey Goodman is the provider kicked off a listserv for his misogynist comments. Specifically, “Let’s discuss the merits and flaws of the actual research, rather than hide behind Prause’s apron strings.” As far as I know, he still has the title IX complaint with his university.
The “actual research” is quite clear. You and NoFap are openly misogynist and promoting hate speech. Birds of a feather.
Also, it’s cute that you thought EEG was “old” technology and fMRI was “better”. Please, do get to know an actual neuroscientist before spouting fake information.

Note: A communication revealed that Dr. Goodman was not kicked off the AASECT listserv and Prause’s spurious complaint – as usual – was ignored.

What are you talking about?

Submitted by Geoff Goodman, Ph.D. on October 28, 2018 – 9:18pm
Seriously, what are you talking about? I’m responding to a blog post equating no masturbation for 90 days with Nazism. Stay on point.

Geoffrey Goodman also discriminates

Submitted by Nicole Prause on October 28, 2018 – 11:07pm
The point is antisex using discrimination against protected classes of people, exactly what you do using sexism to try to silence others.

Submitted by luke on October 29, 2018 – 3:42am
all nofap is trying to do is provide a support group for people who have the same goal- not masturbating. I can see why you might think there is discrimination against women there, as the population is predominantly men, but there are places for women to accomplish exactly the same things. when women post in nofap some people see it as a trigger. I personally don’t but from my perspective theres a big difference between unjustified discrimination and keeping order. You can’t make everyone happy 100% of the time.

Note the following back and forth between Prause and bart revolves around grad student Kris Taylor’s dissertation on 15 comments from reddit/nofap: I want that power back: Discourses of masculinity within an online pornography abstinence forum (2018). That’s right, a PhD analyzing 15 reddit comments! Taylor is decidedly pro-porn and anti-Nofap. He has a history of blatantly misrepresenting studies and the state of the research, as chronicled in the YBOP critique: Debunking Kris Taylor’s “A Few Hard Truths about Porn and Erectile Dysfunction” (2017). As bart points out, Taylor carefully selected 15 out-of-context comments from among millions of reddit/nofap comments in order to support his preordained agenda. Interspersed among the 15 reddit comments we find Taylor’s sociological gibberish masquerading as “deep thought.” This are the type of biased, lightweight reflections that sexology journals love to publish.

Science documenting the misogyny from these groups

Submitted by Nicole Prause on October 29, 2018 – 2:05pm
“‘I want that power back’: Discourses of masculinity within an online pornography abstinence forum”
This was a systematic review of the content in those forums. I believe Ley’s point is not to say everyone must masturbate at some regular schedule. If you choose not to masturbate, just don’t promote for-profit groups that support misogyny and advertise Proud Boys and other antisemitic groups. As far as I am aware, the only celebrity fan of YourBrainOnPorn is David Duke, which he described as preventing race mixing.
There are many ways to reach your goals that don’t line the pockets of hate groups.

Wrong – there was no “systematic review of the content”

Submitted by bart on October 29, 2018 – 4:35pm
of anything. Dr. Prause must be referring to the agenda-driven paper by a grad student who chose a few random quotes from Reddit/nofap to push a false narrative (‘I want that power back’: Discourses of masculinity within an online pornography abstinence forum)
The opinion paper was qualitative, not quantitative – and everything excerpted was at the discretion of the grad student (Kris Taylor) – who has a history of pro-porn advocacy
Reddit/nofap has 370,000 members and millions upon millions of comments since its inception 8 years ago. It’s reddit for god sake. You can peruse a single post from reddit and find a thousand divergent and sometimes crazy comments. It’s reddit!!!.
Taylor excerpted 15 comments, writing a skewed narrative to match his predetermined wants. That’s right, 14 comments. That’s not a “study”. A 9th grader could hang out for 30 minutes on reddit (any sub-reddit), grab a few comments and write it up – and it would be comparable. What a joke.
Try citing a quantitative study by someone with PhD.

Peer-reviewed misogyny

Submitted by Nicole Prause on October 29, 2018 – 4:47pm
The fake-name account appears to want some of the quotes from the systematic-review paper posted. These will make very clear that extensive content on the NoFap website is misogynist. If you visit this website, you will be supporting and furthering misogyny, above and beyond the antisemitism evidenced from Dr. Ley’s original piece.
“… what in the world is masculine about jerking off to porn in front of a screen? If you got caught you would feel rightfully ashamed. There’s nothing shameful about fucking a hot young girl, you feel like the king of the jungle afterwards that’s what we are meant to do! Fuck girls. Not jerk off like lonely losers to pixels on a screen. He makes some good points in the book, doesn’t mean I became a feminist and grew a vagina after reading it. If anything it made me want to fap less and fuck more. Is that not
masculine for you?”
“You think it’s a coincidence homeless guys don’t get laid? We’re animals… it’s natural to be attracted to what’s best for you and the species.”
“Rarely has it ever been that women chase the man.
That makes no sense. If you are truly masculine, then YOU go after the woman.”
“Think about what feminine means to you. Are you doing those things? Are you seeking approval, laughing nervously, and being indecisive? You shouldn’t be… And by the way, you can laugh, but laugh only if you want to. Laughing because you are nervous is feminine. Let the girls do that around you. Think about what masculine means to you. Are you doing those things? You should be. Are you decisive? Do you know what you stand for? Do you know what you want, and can you find a way to get it? These are the traits you need to be cultivating… Pay deep attention to your internal monologue. Don’t do or say things to people unless you want to… Don’t use 7 words when 4 will do. Speak in a deep, controlled voice.”
“The thing about power, at least in the modern world we live in today, is that a man simply has to respect himself and not heel to being a beta (bitch) to be considered masculine”
They provide many more exact misogynist quotes like this. What an awful group to support.

Proved my point: carefully chosen excerpts to promote agenda {No longer available, previously at https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/comment/1037641#comment-1037641}

Submitted by bart on October 29, 2018 – 5:17pm
of a grad student who says porn never causes any problems. Qualitative clap-trap from an non-PhD. Let me grab a few comments out millions, and write a bunch of filler…..
I’ll go to reddit now and grab a few comments:
Delayed ejaculation: GONE! Thank you nofap! ‘
And from there things got even better. ALL and I literally mean ALL my social anxiety went away. On the second week I had cute girls talking to me everyday and I have even started “dating” (we had sex) this girl who was literally the girl of my dreams in high school (still is tbh). I even remember her saying to me “Wow you’re really good at making eye contact” and I received that same complement from others girls too.
I realized how bad I used to be when talking to people and its crazy to look back on. When I go to parties I am able to talk and hold conversations with anyone and it the best thing ever.
I totally agree with the benefits!
Used to have to think of porn in order to orgasm with wife. I have had regular sex through all my marriage (6 years now), but have always found that unless the sex is especially good I had to think of P in order to O in my wife, and found that about 5% of the time that I couldn’t finish at all. Now though I don’t think about this at all, just enjoy the time with her. It’s almost like starting over and learning sex again, it can be such a different with a clear mind not clouded by P.
26days = some of best sex ever!
Well I’ve gone 26 days now after going just a week at a time for ages, I’ve had some amazing sex with my gf of 8 months, not amazing in a porn style way, but very loving very emotional and feeling great. We’d sex 4 times this week, 2 of them were amazing, 2 were more the normal just felt good. It seemed to come out of nowhere the amazing sex. But really it was the lack of porn I’m sure. I wondered did I just think it was very different and gf didn’t, but nope, gf that it was very different and amazing too, which makes it all the better. So keep up the kicking porn in the nuts folks!
I’d always heard about surveys where they’d say that men who don’t watch porn are “more satisfied” with their sex lives. I never really knew what that was, or I thought I was “satisfied” enough. But now, on this streak, I’ve seen the difference. It’s like night and day! It’s better in sooo many ways. More satisfying, it’s a better experience physically, mentally it’s better as well. Can’t even explain. Sex is soooo much better without porn
A little bit different from Kris Taylor’s carefully chosen 15 out of over 10 million. And Taylor didn’t go to the nofap.com forum – which has millions more.

Scientist vs. anonymous blogger

Submitted by Nicole Prause on October 29, 2018 – 5:24pm
Scientist every time
There’s was a peer-reviewed article. You probably wrote all of those yourself. I just discovered that the NoFap company account actually was being run by Alexander Rhodes himself, in violation of his no-contact request. So your actual founder is stalking women online in violation of no-contact orders.
You provide no evidence that their review was not balanced. As your cannot pass peer-review, I think it’s clear where the problem is.

“Review” – It wasn’t a review and you know it (I hope)

You don’t even know what a review entails, do you? Again, it was 15 carefully selected comments out of tens of millions comments published on reddit/nofap since its inception 8 years ago.
How about detailing for us what a “review” of Reddit comments would entail. How would it be structured? Tell us about the methodology of a “review” of millions of comments over an 8 year period on a platform that allows everyone on the internet to post and say whatever they please.
From the paper itself we can see that it wasn’t a review at all:
Given this approach to data collection, we wish to highlight that the data presented is not intended to be read as representative of NoFap as a whole, but to present how some users express a particular investment in masculinity and its constitution (Edley, 2001; Edley and Wetherell, 1997). That is, as opposed to an analysis in which users’ posts are understood as oblique references to masculinity (through their talk about video games, pornography, exercise and diet, etc.), our study presents the ways in which users actively constitute masculine positions. Our search term ‘masculinity’ rendered numerous pages of ‘original posts’ which pertained specifically to defining masculinity.
So grad student Taylor selected 15 comments from a search for “masculinity” to support his predetermined goal, while ignoring %99.9999999999999 of all other comments. Is that what you call a “review”?
Taylor then interjected mind-numbing commentary on each of the carefully selected comments. For example, this load of gibberish about comment #11:
In the original post (Extract 11) the concept of a man that is both ‘who you are’ and ‘who you strive to be’ is introduced with an appeal to ‘embrace your masculinity’, again in the manner of a motivational call to arms to rally a general NoFap audience. However, the text indicates that it has been necessary for the author to hide aspects of his masculinity in the past to ‘not offend’. This disclosure positions certain expressions of masculinity as naturally offensive, or masculinity as a construct that has been vilified and judged to be problematic in its ‘natural’ form.
And this is what you, Dr. Prause, cite as a “review” of the entirety of reddit/nofap? LOL.

Peer-reviewed: you don’t have it

Submitted by Nicole Prause on October 30, 2018 – 10:38pm
They reported their systematic approach, a point you proved yourself by posting their method. You disclose nothing, were subject to no standards, made no attempt to observe in any systematic way…that is the difference between peer-review.
So yes, get it published or stick to your blogs, but there’s a reason you’ll never be able to publish your ramblings: They are poorly reasoned. I suspect this is because you have a conflict of interest. NoFap is a for-profit site; they make money by scaring people into having a problem they don’t actually have.

I have it and you have no idea what a “review” entails

Submitted by bart on October 30, 2018 – 11:23pm
There was no “systematic approach” and it wasn’t a review. The paper wasn’t even a random sample of reddit/nofap posts. For the 4th time, grad student Taylor carefully selected excerpts from 15 out of context reddit comments (out of tens of millions) to match the narrative he already decided upon- and probably already transcribed (Taylor didn’t even provide full comments!).
As expected, you failed to respond to my very simple request to detail for us what a “review” of Reddit comments would entail. How would it be structured? Tell us about the methodology of a “review” of millions of comments over an 8 year period on a platform that allows everyone on the internet to post and say whatever they please.
It’s clear from your many comments here that you are obsessed with nofap (which is pretty strange). Waving around a grad student’s qualitative paper with 15 carefully selected, out-of-context excerpts from comments, while falsely asserting that it was “systematic review” of reddit/nofap comments is bad look. LOL

Expertise matters

Submitted by Nicole Prause on October 30, 2018 – 11:47pm
There actually is no such thing as just a “review”, there are many different types. Each have different criteria. This review fulfilled the requirements for what they were required to meet criteria for publication.
Yours has not. Hurling personal insults at a woman with a doctorate appears consistent with the NoFap community.
Get your ideas through peer-review, or you have nothing to contribute at this point.

Stating facts here.

Submitted by bart on October 31, 2018 – 12:14am
Playing the victim, when you are the one attacking members of nofap in every comment, is also a very bad look.
How do you know that I am not a women or transgender?
How do you know that I do not have a doctorate?
You assumptions offend me, as do your personal attacks, your put-downs, and your inability to stay on subject: the Kris Taylor 15-comment opinion piece, that didn’t review anything.
Disappointing. I excepted more civility and better presentation of empirical evidence.

Avoiding the point to personally attack again

Submitted by Nicole Prause on October 31, 2018 – 12:22am
They passed a scientific bar in peer-review at a reputable journal. You can try to pass that bar. As-is, anecdotes likely written by you are not good counter-points to a peer-reviewed paper.
I am not coming here to be called names. Women can be misogynist the same as anyone else, unfortunately. I expect nothing less from a group with a documented history of misogyny. The comments from their paper are all still present on the website, so it seems NoFap is happy to support the misogyny, even when it’s been identified by independent third parties with no conflict of interest.

Paper was not a review and it stated it was not representative

Submitted by bart on October 31, 2018 – 8:30am
You continue to falsely state that Kris Taylor’s paper (an opinion piece by a grad student) was a review. It was not a review of the literature. It did not review the peer-reviewed literature related to anything, including anything to do with porn use.
You continue to falsely claim that the 15 comments were was magically representative of tens of millions of comments posted on reddit/nofap over the last 8 years. The paper clearly states that the 15 bits from carefully selected comments were not representative of reddit/nofap. From the paper:
“Given this approach to data collection, we wish to highlight that the data presented is not intended to be read as representative of NoFap as a whole”
I suggest reading a study before making claims about that study.
You continue to falsely claim that nofap has a “documented history of misogyny”. Not so. There is no “documented” history of anything related to reddit/nofap. To begin to document any pattern of attitudes or beliefs a quantitative, systematic assessment of comments by members of nofap would need to be done. It hasn’s been done. The Taylor paper did not do this as it was not quantitative and was not representative…. it wasn’t anything but 15 carefully selected comments to further the authors predetermined agenda
In addition, Kris Taylor failed to confirm if any of the comments were by members of npfap. Anyone can comment on reddit/nofap. Without confirmation of membership, your assertion, based on only 15 comments, is without support. No documentation exists for misogyny or anything else, and that includes Taylor’s paper.
Below are some of the 15 excerpts from Kris Taylor’s paper that Dr. Prause says documents the misogyny of all of reddit/nofap’s 370,000 members. Judge for yourself if these comments are misogyny at its very worse:
—-
No Fap is not only about overcoming our addiction over porn and masturbation, it is also about reconnecting with our inner masculinity. So lets come out of our fantasies and begin to connect with real women. Lets love them and have meaningful sex with them
—-
Real women, real life, real respect.
—–
My no Fap journey began when i couldn’t stay erect for a real life woman! That was 44 long hard days ago. Today i had sex for the first time.
—–
I hate how it makes me feel like a creep. I hate how it makes me feel like I am unworthy of love. I hate how it makes me feel weak when I finish. I hate how it makes me feel deprived of my core masculinity. I hate how it keeps me in my head, afraid of the challenges of the real world. I hate everything about porn, other than the fact that it seems pleasurable in the moment. So I will be finding my pleasure in real things from now on, because fuck porn and how it makes me feel.
—–
Good on you man. Remember this feeling, let it drive you and keep away from porn. There’s so many great real things to find pleasure in. The pleasure of connecting with people, the pleasure of exercise, the pleasure of reading, the pleasure of finding a girl you really like without seeing her as a sex object or worrying about sexual problems. All the best in your journey!
——
But I am beginning to realize I am only hurting myself by not constantly striving to be masculine and increase my masculine nature. It will affect some people, but it’s who I am at the core. So embrace your masculinity. For you and your (potential) lover.
—–
Think about what masculine means to you. Are you doing those things? You should be. Are you decisive? Do you know what you stand for? Do you know what you want, and can you find a way to get it? These are the traits you need to be cultivating. . . Pay deep attention to your internal monologue.
—-
Being a man means you are passionate, creative, you focus on solution and fixing. Don’t allow toxic shame to talk away that pride. Learn to self-affirm.
—-
You don’t have to be Heisman winner or national wrestler or something, just respect yourself and your own opinions
—–
As you should know, most fapstronauts partake for several different reasons. My reason for being a fapstronaut is to increase my masculinity, become stronger as a man, and learn who i really am.
—–
What in the world is masculine about jerking off to porn in front of a screen?
—-
That’s it folks. The above is the entirety of Dr. Prause’s empirical evidence that nofap is a “documented” to be a stronghold of misogyny. A handful of non-representative, out-of-context comments found through a search for the term “masculinity”, selected without any discernible criteria, by a grad student with an agenda. A handful of comments, posted on the 5th largest website in the US, by a few guys, who may or may not be nofap members – out of tens of millions possible comments. So devastatingly convincing.

NoFap threatens to rape and stalk women

Submitted by Nicole Prause on October 31, 2018 – 10:51am
As the misogynist, misrepresentations of this anonymous troll make clear, this is why I get rape threats and am stalked by NoFap followers.
I do not owe anyone an education on published science they refuse to publish themselves, so would encourage you to stop threatening female scientists online.

Debating merits of a study makes me a misogynist/rapist/troll?

Submitted by bart on October 31, 2018 – 12:47pm
Wow. When confronted with study excerpts that refute your claims about the study you devolve into character assassination, name calling, ad hominem and playing the victim (even though you are no victim in this thread).
It has been very enlightening to observe your tactics and internet demeanor.

As Bart and others saw, Prause always engages in personal attacks and outlandish assertions, while simultaneously misrepresenting studies and fabricating tales of her own victimization.

Bart learned, as everyone eventually does, that if you engage Prause in a substantive debate she very quickly resorts to name calling, unsupported accusations, and misrepresentation of the research. Once again we see a licensed psychologist co-authoring an article and trolling the comments section to smear individuals who are trying to quit porn.

Finally, we have David Ley lying in the Facebook comment promoting his defamatory blog post:

Ley’s Psychology Today blog post targeted Alexander Rhodes and Gary Wilson, both of whom are atheists and politically liberal. As is often the case, Ley’s claims are the exact opposite of reality. That’s how propagandists roll.

Others – October, 2018: Prause follows-up the “fascist” article by attacking & libeling Alexander Rhodes and Nofap.com on Twitter

Its important to keep in mind that Nofap isn’t an organization, or movement, or anything other than the practice of abstaining from porn and masturbation for a period of time. While the Nofap subreddit was started in 2011, the “NoFap” concept can be traced back the “No Fap Ironman Competition” (October 20th, 2006 on the North American Subaru Owners Club Forums). Nofap months, and abstaining-from-porn contests subsequently occurred on many internet forum, long before reddit/nofap was born (see a collection of such forums on this page). Even an 8-week militarily boot camp could be considered “nofap.” To claim that nofappers are X or Y is like claiming that all Dallas Cowboy fans are X or Y. Any attempt to label those who abstain from porn or masturbation as a unified group is pure agenda-driven propaganda. Which leads us to the Ley & Prause “nofappers are fascist” blog post.

While policing comments under her and Ley’s Psychology Today blog post, Prause simultaneously went on a Twitter tirade attacking and defaming Nofap, Alexander Rhodes, and Gary Wilson. A reminder: Prause and Ley have a long, documented history of harassing and libeling Alexander Rhodes and Nofap (The current examples are just the tip of the Prause/Ley iceberg.):

Prause’s Twitter storm started with baiting NoFap by misrepresenting tweets from over 3 years ago. (Note how Prause has collected tweets, comments, random posts, for years from various accounts and from porn recovery forums which she has trolled with dozens of fake accounts.)

Prause follows up her targeted harassment and falsehoods with more tweets.

Tweet #2 – About a biased paper by a anti-nofap.com, pro-porn grad student, Kris Taylor (described above)

As described, Kris Taylor carefully selected 15 comments (out of millions available) to advance his predetermined agenda-driven narrative.

In Tweet #3 Prause provides a screenshot of an account that is not associated with NoFap. An account that NoFap lawyers had already served with a cease and desist letter for using their name and for cyberstalking:

The official Nofap account responding to Prause’s harassment and defamation with this tweet:

Caught in blatant misrepresentation, Prause goes on the attack, suggesting that Nofap should police the entire internet for her benefit. Nofap replies with undeserved calmness:

With no provocation, Prause injects Gary Wilson into her Twitter tirade – saying that Wilson has physically stalked her and had been reported to the LAPD and UCLA. All of these familiar lies are covered in several other places on the Prause page. Here, Prause provides a screenshot of a 2016 Alexander Rhodes tweet defending Wilson from Prause’s lies. The entire incident, with screenshots, is documented in this section: Others – October, 2016: Prause commits perjury attempting to silence Nofap’s Alexander Rhodes.

Prause is steeped in the ways of propaganda: When someone calls you out on your lies and harassment (as Rhodes did), Prause turns it into her faux-victimization. Nofap responds and links to this page chronicling her behaviors.

Their Twitter conversation about Gary Wilson continues in this section:

——————————

Prause continues her tirade by posting screenshots from the right-wing site “Gab.” The Gab nutcases have no association with Nofap, yet Prause claims they are Nofap members (as if Nofap issues membership cards):

Nofap calmly responds to Prause as if she were a sincere individual with a legitimate concern. Yet imagine all the time Prause spent scouring internet forums and Twitter for any random comment she could misuse and misrepresent. Impressive.

David Ley, Prause’s companion in cyber-harassment, feels compelled to join in the attack, with his usual unsupported claims about the mighty and powerful “sex addiction industry” (no mention of the actual industry here – the truly mighty and powerful porn industry and the FSC):

The Prause-Ley tag team continues, with Prause’s assertions of antisemitism:

Sickened by Prause and Ley’s blog post, and harassment of Nofap, pornhelp.org chimes in:

PornHelp tweets 2 more comments, pointing out that Ley & Prause published their “nofappers are fascist” article on the day of the deadliest attack on Jews in American history:

Note: The mass shooting of Jews occurred in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, the home of NoFap.com founder, Alexander Rhodes.

Prause continues, promoting Kris Taylor’s PhD pathetic dissertation and saying that if her assertions weren’t true NoFap would sue her (knowing very well that a lawsuit might cost a few hundred thousand dollars, drag on for years – and that Nofap.com could not afford such an endeavor. Few could).

Prause now tries to link Gavin McInnes to Nofap – Nofap.com lays it out for Prause:

Nofap.com also responds to Prause’s assertions related to Kris Taylor’s paper containing 15 carefully selected out-of context comments from reddit/nofap (not NoFap.com):

Prause blatantly lies about Kris Taylor’s 15-comment hit piece, claiming it was a “representative sample” of the millions of reddit/nofap comments posted over the last 8 years:

No Dr. Prause, it wasn’t a “representative sample” – as Taylor clearly stated in his paper:

“Given this approach to data collection, we wish to highlight that the data presented is not intended to be read as representative of NoFap as a whole“

Prause’s misrepresentation of Kris Taylors’s paper was thoroughly exposed in the above back-and-forth between bart and Prause in the comments sections of Prause & Ley’s blog post: “Why Fascists Hate Masturbation: The rise of nationalism coincides with anti-masturbation movements“.

Nofap.com tries to be nice, yet again:

Nofap.com calmly calls out David Ley for his lies:

In another relevant thread, Nofap.com states the obvious:

Nofap.com can only moderate Nofap.com. It does not own reddit.

Nofap.com has had enough, which Prause takes as signal to continue her aggressive, unprofessional falsehoods and misrepresentations (as any caring, licensed psychologist would do). Once again, Prause refers to Gary Wilson (fake experts with police reports):

Claims about police reports are lies (see below). Claims about Antisemitism, sexism and other discrimination” are equally without support – Prause never links to examples of such posts on NoFap.com. Note: Nofap.com is not the same as reddit/nofap. Reddit is truly the Wild West where anyone on the internet can post anything. Prause well knows this as she has created at least 20 fake usernames to post on reddit/pornfree and reddit/nofap. A few sections documenting Prause many aliases she has used:

With no one responding to her falsehoods and misrepresentations, Prause ends with a link to Kris Taylor’s ramblings related to his 15 artfully selected comments from reddit/nofap (not NoFap.com):

As always, Prause accuses anyone who engages with her falsehoods and misrepresentations of being a misogynist. The attacker playing the victim. Propaganda in its purest form.

As chronicled in several other sections, Prause uses Wikipedia pages to defame and harass the same individuals and organizations she defames and harasses on social media and in emails. We have documented over a dozen Prause Wikipedia sockpuppets, including several attacking Nofap: May 24-27, 2018: Prause creates multiple sock-puppets to edit the NoFap Wikipedia page. In May, 2018, one of Prause’s sockpuppets – 130.216.57.166 – edited the Nofap Wikipedia page, inserting Kris Taylor’s dissertation on 15 comments from reddit/nofap: I want that power back: Discourses of masculinity within an online pornography abstinence forum:

After 8 edits, Prause created another fake account – Suuperon – to delete a study showing the benefits of abstaining from porn, while adding more context to her other sock-puppets edits:

All the above Wikipedia edits mirror everything Prause said on twitter and in the comments section under the Prause/Ley Psychology Today article. The cybertsalker caught in the act….. again.

Update: July, 2019: Alexander Rhodes affidavit: Donald Hilton defamation lawsuit against Nicole R Prause & Liberos LLC.

October, 2018: Prause follows-up the “fascist” article by attacking and libeling Gary Wilson on Twitter, for the 300th or so time

The following tweets are a continuation of the above back & forth. Prause puts forth the same string of lies she and her sockpuppets have been repeating for nearly 6 years. (See the beginning with Prause using multiple aliases to post all over the web: July, 2013: Prause publishes her first EEG study (Steele et al., 2013). Wilson critiques it. Prause employs multiple usernames to post lies around the Web). We debunk Prause’s falsehoods below her first 2 tweets:

Tweet #1 – Prause scours NoFap.com to produce a random comment by an excessively polite Middle Eastern man referring to Gary Wilson as “professor.” In Prause’s bizzaro world, this comment constitutes “proof positive” that Gary Wilson claimed to be a professor! For more on Prause’s ongoing, evidence-free campaign, see Ongoing – Prause falsely claims that Wilson has misrepresented his credentials.

———

1) It’s been over 5 years and Wilson has never been contacted by any police department or agency (a call to the Los Angeles police department and the UCLA campus police revealed no such report in their systems). Although Prause has repeated this undocumented claim dozens of times, she has also failed to divulge what law Wilson supposedly violated. In early 2018, Prause added the tall-tale that Wilson was twice reported to the FBI. Wilson has never been contacted by the FBI. What’s next, the CIA, ICE, Homeland Security… maybe a mall cop?

2) The paper Prause is referring to is this peer-reviewed paper involving 7 US Navy doctors – Is Internet Pornography Causing Sexual Dysfunctions? A Review with Clinical Reports (2016). No, a third-party did not suggest retraction. See the entire unbelievable story here: From 2015 through 2018 – Prause’s efforts to have Behavioral Sciences review paper (Park et al., 2016) retracted. In reality, Prause has spent 3 years, written hundreds of emails, created fake aliases, and lied to Retraction Watch. She has also harassed the Navy, MDPI, the scholarly journal Behavioral Sciences, a charity, Wilson’s publisher, and others – all in attempt to have this paper retracted. The paper will not be retracted: in a little over 2 years it has become the most viewed paper ever for the journal Behavioral Sciences, while garnering dozens of citations.

NoFap.com calmly asks Prause to provide for evidence of stalking:

Tweet #2 – Prause responds with more lies:

No, LAPD records are not public. That is why Prause did not link to her “police report.” No, Wilson has never stalked Nicole Prause and hasn’t been in LA for years. No, there was no LAPD police report – as confirmed by a call with a kind-hearted policewoman at the LAPD.

UPDATES – law enforcement agencies expose Prause as a pathological liar:

Updates:

October, 2018: Prause falsely claims that her name appears on YBOP over 35,000 (or 82,000; or 103,000) times

October, 28, 2019: This Prause tweet appears in the thread where she defames and harasses Alexander Rhodes & NoFap.com (Alex Rhodes later sues Prause for defamation):

If Prause keeps up her defamation and harassment of Gary Wilson, Alexander Rhodes and others, her name may soon appear 35,00 times on YBOP, as almost all instances are found on the pages chronicling her obsessive, unrelenting cyber-harassment:

All joking aside, Prause didn’t search Gary Wilson’s website, YourBrainOnPorn.com. She performed a purposely incorrect Google search for “prause site: yourbrainonporn.com” (leaving a space after the colon). Leaving the space tells Google to search the entire internet, not just YBOP! Her incorrect search did return 35,000 items, but the vast majority are not YBOP.

The proper syntax for such a Google search is to not have a space between “site:” and a URL, so “site:yourbrainonporn.com” is fine, but “site: yourbrainonporn.com” would search across the internet for either yourbrainonporn.com or the keyboard before it. On October 28, 2018 (the time of the above tweet) the proper results for “Prause” on yourbrainonporn.com is 565 mentions:

Frankly 565 seems too low for “Prause” on YBOP. Why does YourBrainOnPorn.com contain so many instances of “Prause”? First, the pages chronicling Prause’s behaviors alone contain hundreds of instances of “Prause.” Second, YBOP contains over 13,000 pages, and it’s a clearinghouse for nearly everything associated with Internet porn use and its effects on the user. Prause has published multiple studies about porn use and hypersexuality, and by her own admission, is a professional debunker of porn addiction and porn-induced sexual problems.

A Google search for “Nicole Prause” + pornography returns about 31,000 pages. Perhaps thanks to her costly public relations firm, she’s quoted in hundreds of journalistic articles about porn use and porn addiction. She has published several papers related to pornography use. She’s on TV, radio, podcasts, and YouTube channels claiming to have debunked porn addiction with a single (heavily criticized) study. So Prause’s name inevitably shows up a lot on a site that functions as a clearinghouse for research and news associated with Internet porn’s effects.

Not only do Prause’s studies appear on YBOP, so do hundreds of other studies, many of which cite “Prause” in their reference sections. YBOP also has published very long critiques of six Prause papers. YBOP also hosts at least 18 peer-reviewed critiques of Prause’s studies. Further, YBOP contains at least a dozen lay critiques of Prause’s work. YBOP also hosts many journalistic articles that quote Nicole Prause, and YBOP often responds to Prause’s claims in these articles. YBOP also debunks many of the talking points put forth by Prause and her close ally David Ley. To be sure, YBOP also critiques other questionable research on porn and related subjects. These critiques are not personal, but rather substantive.

UPDATE: January 10, 2019: Prause claims that her name appears 82,000 times on YBOP (in addition to lying about reporting Gary Wilson to the FBI and LAPD):

As for the 82,000 instances of “Prause” on my website (www.yourbrainonporn.com), this is absolutely false. As explained above, Prause cleverly employed the improper syntax to achieve 82,000. The proper syntax for such a Google search is to not have a space between “site:” and a URL, so “site:www.yourbrainonporn.com” is fine, but “site: wwwyourbrainonporn.com” would search across the internet for either wwwyourbrainonporn.com or the or Prause or both. Put simply, a proper search for my website – prause site:www.yourbrainonporn.com – returns only 871 instances. Most instances of “Prause” are on found the above pages documenting Dr. Prause’s defamation and harassment.

As for the other claims, Dr. Prause never reported me to the FBI, LAPD or UCLAPD, as documented in these 2 sections. She is lying and has been for years:

UPDATE 2: Trolling the twitter thread of anti-sex trafficking, radical feminist Laila Mickelwait, Prause repeats the same old lies in her two tweets (FBI reports, name on YBOP 82,000 times, stalking, sexual harassment, etc.).

Obsessed stalker strikes again…. on a Sunday.

Below: actual returns (2-25-19) using the proper syntax for a Google search for instances of “prause” on yourbrainonporn.com. Notice that the top returned pages are documenting Prause’s harassment or critiquing her peer-reviewed papers. The rise in instances of “Prause” is caused by YBOP adding more examples of her harassment and defamation to the Prause pages, and the creation of a page that exposes her close relationship with the pornography industry (Is Nicole Prause Influenced by the Porn Industry?).

This is what a cybertstalker does.

UPDATE 3 (March, 2019): In response to an article she didn’t like Prause and David Ley go on a cyber-harassment rampage, as documented here: Others – March, 2019: Prause & David Ley go on a cyber-harrasment & defamation rampage in response to an article in The Guardian: “Is porn making young men impotent?”. In her fury, Prause feels compelled to lie once again about the number of instances “Prause” occurs on YBOP.

Both David Ley and Prause falsely claim that the person tweeting a few studies is a fake account account by Gary Wilson. It’s not.

Everything Ley and Prause said in the above tweets are lies.

Prause contiunes her rampage with this tweet about the TEDx talk:

We know that Prause harassed TED for 5 straight years… until their very biased “science curator” gave in (the curator only has a bachelor’s degree in writing, not science) and placed a bogus note on the talk. In reality everything in the TEDX talk is fully supported, with hundreds of additional studies supporting its assertion having been published since the talk was given (March, 2012). See these 2 extensive pages:

More of the same (March 29, 2019). First, Pause trolls a thread to support the porn industry agenda by misrepresenting the research, falsely stating the WE found that more porn use, in a few selected countries, was related to fewer reported rapes:

But that’s not really true. See – Rape rates are on the rise, so ignore the pro-porn propaganda (2018).

Someone replies with a link to YBOP. Nikky tweets her usual lies:

Prause, the cyber-harasser and defamer.

—————————————————

UPDATE (December, 2019): Adding Google Translate to YBOP multplies search returns by a factor of 100! (Prause commits perjury)

In court filings for Don Hilton’s defamation lawsuit against her, Prause commited numerous instances of perjury. One such instance was her falsely stating that her name appered 103,000 times on YBOP

As explained above, Prause did not search my website, YourBrainOnPorn.com. Instead, she performed a purposely incorrect Google search for “prause site: yourbrainonporn.com” (leaving a space after the colon). Leaving the space tells Google to search the entire internet, not just YBOP! Prause’s search trick does return about 29,000 items (not 103,000), but the vast majority are not on YBOP:

The proper syntax for such a Google search is to omit the space between “site:” and a URL Thus, “site:yourbrainonporn.com” works fine, but “site: yourbrainonporn.com” searches across the internet for either yourbrainonporn.com or “Prause”.

In December, 2019, the proper result for Prause and yourbrainonporn.com was 8,300 Google returns. However, the vast majority of these 8,300 google returns were duplicates of YBOP pages, because YBOP is translated by G-Translate into multiple other languages (and so each mention of Prause’s name is counted multiple times leading to vastly exaggerated numbers).

Let me explain: Because Google translates each YBOP page into 100 languages, a solitary mention on a single YBOP page can lead to a Google search returning 100 pages! In other words, you might need to divide Prause’s number by 100. For example, by the 10th page of a proper Google search for Prause on YBOP, 8 out of the 10 returns are duplicate pages in a foreign language:

In October, 2018, before YBOP was redesigned to employ Google Translate, the true result for “Prause” on yourbrainonporn.com was 565 mentions:

As explained above, 565 seemed low for “Prause” in October of 2018, as I was forced to create several pages to document and counter Prause’s relentless defamation and harassment of me and many others (which rapidly grew as Prause’s intensified and expanded:

Important to note that mentions of “Prause” have increased significantly since October 2018, as Prause’s defamation and cyberstalking have risen exponentially. For example, on January 29, 2019, Prause filed a trademark application to obtain YOURBRAINONPORN and YOURBRAINONPORN.COM. In April 2019, Prause created a trademark infringing website “RealYourBrainOnPorn,” and a Twitter account (https://twitter.com/BrainOnPorn), a YouTube channel, and a Facebook page, all employing the words “Your Brain On Porn.” Prause also created a reddit account (user/sciencearousal) to spam porn recovery forums reddit/pornfree and reddit/NoFap with promotional drivel, claiming porn use is harmless, and disparaging YourBrainOnPorn.com and myself. Put simply, Prause has used her new alias (“RealYourBrainOnPorn”) to wage a full scale war on all her victims. As a result, I was forced to create these new YBOP pages:

Within a few months of creating RealYBOP, two defamation lawsuits were filed against Prause. The related documents for both defamation lawsuits (Donald Hilton, MD & Nofap founder Alexander Rhodes), were placed on YBOP, resulting is these pages:

While I get tired of documenting Prause’s activity, I know that YBOP is the one site willing to document Prause’s unbelievable behaviors. I have done this for the protection of her many victims, as a resource for the public to know the truth, and as a source of evidence for potential lawsuits (there are currently 3 lawsuits involving Prause). An ugly job, but unfortunately necessary.

Ongoing – David Ley & Nicole Prause’s ongoing attempts to smear YBOP/Gary Wilson & Nofap/Alexander Rhodes by claiming links with neo-Nazi sympathizers

David Ley and Nicole Prause’s October, 2018 blog post (Why Fascists Hate Masturbation: The rise of nationalism coincides with anti-masturbation movements) and Twitter tirade attacking & libeling Alexander Rhodes/Nofap, is the culmination of a malicious 3-year campaign to associate YBOP, and men in recovery, with neo-Nazis. In Ley’s reprehensible October 27, 2018 tweet promoting his defamatory blog post, he asks “who knew that YBOP, Nofap, and fascism were really connected?”

The answer to “who knew?” is “Prause & Ley” because they were the only ones cultivating a fictitious “connection” between porn recovery forums and fascists. Starting in 2016 defamers Ley and Prause hatched this previously non-existent association. Apart from Prause & Ley’s Twitter pages no connection existed between Nazi sympathizers and Wilson or Rhodes. Ley & Prause initiated their fraudulent campaign with this tweet:

Prause immediately retweeted it (then later deleted her tweet):

Scouring the internet for anything Ley can use to smear Wilson, he pounced upon an obscure (and disgusting) David Duke blog post containing a link to Gary Wilson’s TEDx talk. Wilson’s TEDx talk has some 11 million views, so thousands of folks of all stripes have linked to (and recommended) Wilson’s talk, “The Great Porn Experiment.”

How does this implicate Gary Wilson as a “white supremacist?” It doesn’t, of course. This ridiculous assertion is like suggesting all dog lovers are Nazi’s because Hitler loved his dogs. It’s the equivalent of claiming that the producers of “The Matrix” are neo-Nazis because David Duke liked their movie. Pure BS. (Reminder: one of Ley & Prause’s closest allies (therapist Joe Kort) linked to and recommended Gary Wilson’s TEDx talk. Consider his words:

Does recommending “The Great Porn Experiment” make Joe Kort a neo-Nazi? It must, according the Ley/Prause doctrine of: if you like X, and a Nazi likes X, you are a Nazi.

Here’s Prause attempting to connect “racist pseudo-science” with anyone who says porn might be a problem, including Pamela Anderson (Prause later deleted her tweet):

In a disgusting tweet she later deleted, Prause tried to make a connection between the tragedies in Charlottesville and Gary Wilson:

The sickening Prause and Ley propaganda machine kept rolling with this David Ley tweet tagging an unrelated NYTimes article about neo-Nazi’s:

With no factual evidence, psychologist Ley tries yet again to connect far-left liberal/atheist Gary Wilson and far-right, former KKK Grand Wizard, David Duke.

What Ley doesn’t know is that Wilson grew up in a black neighborhood and he has African-American relatives. Ley is without scruples.

————————–

Not to be outdone, Prause scours the net for anything she can mischaracterize and implies a non-existent connection between “anti-porn activism” and neo-Nazis.

————————–

Ley tries to once again to connect David Duke with anything “anti-porn.” This propaganda appeared after Ley & Prause’s Psychology Today blog post:

——————————

In this next tweet, Ley takes the laughable stance that there’s no racism in porn, but says those who claim porn is addictive are racist, misogynist and anti-Semites. It’s part of the ongoing strategy to paint anyone who disagrees with them as racist and misogynistic perpetrators – and themselves and the porn industry as the victims:

As these pages reveal, it’s Dr. Prause who regularly attacks those “who claim porn is addictive” (Prause has zero evidence of anyone named on these pages having engaged in misogyny). For much more on this ongoing smear campaign by Prause and David Ley see these sections:

——————–

Prause & Ley search twitter for anything they can use to claim that anyone who quits using porn is a misogynist/fascist. Here Ley retweets Prause, and adds his spin:

This person, who is not affiliated with nofap or any other organization, appears to be reporting Instagram users for violating rules related to pornographic content. This appears to have drawn the attention of porn stars and Prause was notified. Whatever the case, Prause and Ley are working hard to keep their fabricated meme going.

April 15th, 2019, David Ley tunes up his cyber-harassment with his usual defamation:

Ley tweets the above so he can tweet his fascist article:

Ley continues, suggesting that Gary Wilson, Alex Rhodes, and Fight The New Drug are rigged, obsessive, and best of all – homophobic.

Updates:

David J Ley is now being paid by the porn industry to promote their websites, while he fervently denies the harms of porn: Ongoing – David J. Ley is now collaborating with porn industry giant xHamster to promote its websites and convince users that porn addiction and sex addiction are myths.
July, 2019: Alexander Rhodes affidavit: Donald Hilton defamation lawsuit against Nicole R Prause & Liberos LLC.
July, 2019: David J Ley is now being paid by the porn industry to promote their websites, while he fervently denies the harms of porn. See – Ongoing – David J. Ley is now collaborating with porn industry giant xHamster to promote its websites and convince users that porn addiction and sex addiction are myths.
October, 23, 2019: NoFap founder Alexander Rhodes defamation lawsuit against Nicole Prause / Liberos

Others – October, 2018: Prause tweets that she has reported “serial misogynist harasser” Alexander Rhodes to the FBI

As is clearly evident from the above sections, and several other sections on the 2 Prause pages, the only serial harasser here is Nicole Prause. There are no misogynists among the many Prause targets listed on these pages. While Prause regularly accuses her victims of being misogynists, she never provides a single example of such behavior.

The following day, Prause tweets that she reported Alexander Rhodes to the FBI because he is serial misogynist who “violated” a clear no-contact request:

On the same day (in response to one bart’s comments) Prause posts this in the comment section under her and Ley’s “fascist” Psychology Today blog post:

While Prause ends many of her targeted social media attacks by asserting a “no-contact request”, there is no such thing. A “no-contact request” is as legally binding as requesting someone “stop and smell the roses”.

Prause is trying to trick the public (her twitter followers) into believing she has obtained a restraining order or an injunction. She hasn’t. Its just a tweet. But that doesn’t stop her from publicly and falsely accusing her victims of “violating no contact orders” and of “harassment.” The clear, and clearly false, implication of her statements is to suggest these people are acting illegally. Her aggressive tactics and knowingly false accusations are calculated to bully and intimidate the victims of her online cyber-harassment into silence.

A few examples of Prause initiating harassment and defamation followed by claiming victim-hood and ending with so-called “no-contact orders”:

Update: Both Gary Wilson and Alexander Rhodes filed FOIA requests with the FBI to find out if Prause had ever filed a report. She had not. See the following two sections:

Updates:

Others – October, 2018: Prause claims that Fight The New Drug told its “followers” that Dr. Prause should be raped (section contains numerous additional defamatory & disparaging tweets by cyberstalker Prause and her alias @BrainOnPorn)

Just when you think Prause’s assertions can’t get any more outlandish and defamatory she hits a new low. In the following two tweets Prause spreads the lie that Fight The New Drug (FTND) has told its followers that Prause should be raped. As is always the case, Prause provides zero evidence for this libelous and absurd assertion.

Tweet #1 – October 13, 2018:

Tweet #2 – October 27, 2018:

If there’s one thing we know about Prause, it’s that if she had so much as a single smidgen of innuendo she would post it as “evidence.” She doesn’t, and so this is a bare-faced, hateful lie. But it continues Prause’s obsessive pattern of spreading vicious falsehoods about FTND. Other such attacks are described in these sections:

Below is a small sampling of Prause’s many tweets defaming and disparaging FTND (Prause has since deleted almost all earlier tweets targeting FTND and others). Keep in mind that FTND never mentions Nicole Prause or engages with her hate speech on its social media platforms.

Afraid not. Prause is referring to her critique of Fight the New Drug’s previous op-ed, that she persuaded 7 of her PhD buddies to sign off on it. The 600-word Op-Ed is chock full of unsupported assertions meant to fool the lay public. It fails to support a single assertion as it cites only 4 papers – none of which have anything to do with porn addiction, porn’s effects on relationships, or porn-induced sexual problems. It also made several false statements about the content and references in the earlier FTND op-ed. Several experts responded with this dismantling of the Prause op-ed: Op-ed: Who exactly is misrepresenting the science on pornography? (2016). Unlike the “neuroscientists of the Op-Ed,” the response cited several hundred studies and multiple reviews of the literature. Nevertheless Prause obsessively touts her 600 word, citation free opinion piece as on par with Darwin’s The Origin of Species.

———————

———————

We musn’t forget openly sexist and anti-science……..

————————

Prause can’t even get the number right – it was 8 PhD’s – but not all were neuroscientists, and none of them had ever published a study involving verified “pornography addicts.”

———————

————————

What?

———————-

Prause claims there’s article behind her quote, but it never materializes.

—————————-

Pure BS – nothing article remotely related to claim (no wonder only one person retweeted it)

—————————

Gibberish, and playing a victim with her info-graphic….while being the perpetrator

————————-

Ley joins Prause, as he often does:

——————–

Prause attacks Matt Fradd and FTND. Fradd is honored and takes her to school:

————————–

More false allegation, yet never any evidence:

————————

Prause tweeting her porn producer friends about her op-ed:

————————-

Again, Prause tweeting as if there was an article covering this – but there wasn’t:

————————-

More random harrasment, ignored by all:

————————–

Prause made several false claims on her Mormon Matters podcast. She followed this up by attacking and libeling the 4 experts on the show the following week. Some of her behaviors covered here: Others – November, 2016: Prause falsely claims to have sent cease & desist letters to panelists on the Mormon Matters podcast

———————–

Prause is citing her own flawed study, Prause et al., 2015, which debunked nothing. The results: Compared to controls “individuals experiencing problems regulating their porn viewing” had lower brain responses to one-second exposure to photos of vanilla porn. The lead author claims these results “debunk porn addiction.” What legitimate scientist would claim that their lone anomalous study has debunked a well established field of study?

In reality, the findings of Prause et al. 2015 align perfectly with Kühn & Gallinat (2014), which found that more porn use correlated with less brain activation in response to pictures of vanilla porn. Lower EEG readings mean that subjects are paying less attention to the pictures. Put simply, frequent porn users were desensitized to static images of vanilla porn. They were bored (habituated or desensitized). See this extensive YBOP critique. Nine peer-reviewed papers agree that this study actually found desensitization/habituation in frequent porn users (consistent with addiction): Peer-reviewed critiques of Prause et al., 2015

————————

————————–

Here we go with the same discredited op-ed:

———————–

Saying Clay Olsen knowingly supports harassment…….

As always, Prause cites nothing, links to nothing, to support her assertions

———————–

Tunes up again on her long-since ignored complaint:

———————–

The joke of an op-ed, again……..

Reality: Op-ed: Who exactly is misrepresenting the science on pornography? (2016)

————————

Op-ed again, and follow all the imaginary money……

————————

————————-

Prause always says its fake science, but she hasn’t linked to, or cited a specific example in 4 years. She can’t.

———————–

Crews is not a spokesperson for FTND.

———————–

Bogus op-ed again –

Reality: Op-ed: Who exactly is misrepresenting the science on pornography? (2016)

——————-

Tweet about FTND, without naming FTND. The study has nothing to do with FTND:

———————-

For no particular reason Prause goes after FTND. She cites her SLATE article, which does not mention FTND:

For a debunking of nearly every talking point and cherry-picked study employed in the above SLATE article see this extensive critique: Debunking “Why Are We Still So Worried About Watching Porn?” by Marty Klein, Taylor Kohut, and Nicole Prause (2018).

Prause continues her tweets tagging and attacking FTND:

The above tweet has nothing do with what FTND has actually said (Prause never links to any examples), but it takes us back to Prause’s unsupported claims surrounding her 2013 EEG study (Steele et al., 2013): 1) Prause claimed that her subject’s brains did look like cocaine addicts, even though they were never compared to cocaine addicts; 2) Prause misrepresented her findings to the media, claiming her subject’s brains didn’t look like addicts, when they looked exactly like addicts. Eight peer-reviewed papers explain the truth: Peer-reviewed critiques of Steele et al., 2013 Also see this extensive YBOP critique for all the details.

The bits about “cocaine” that expose Prause attacking (in 2018) the very behavior Prause-2013 engaged in, while simultaneously misrepresenting her findings:

Psychology Today interview of Prause:

What was the purpose of the study?
Prause: Our study tested whether people who report such problems look like other addicts from their brain responses to sexual images. Studies of drug addictions, such as cocaine, have shown a consistent pattern of brain response to images of the drug of abuse, so we predicted that we should see the same pattern in people who report problems with sex if it was, in fact, an addiction.
Does this prove sex addiction is a myth?
Prause: If our study is replicated, these findings would represent a major challenge to existing theories of sex “addiction”. The reason these findings present a challenge is that it shows their brains did not respond to the images like other addicts to their drug of addiction.

The above claims that subjects brains did not “respond like other addicts” is without support. This assertion is nowhere to be found in the actual paper. It’s only found in Prause’s PR interviews. In Prause’s study subjects had higher EEG (P300) readings when viewing sexual images – which is exactly what occurs when addicts view images related to their addiction (as in this study on cocaine addicts). Commenting under the Psychology Today interview of Prause, senior psychology professor emeritus John A. Johnson said:

“My mind still boggles at the Prause claim that her subjects’ brains did not respond to sexual images like drug addicts’ brains respond to their drug, given that she reports higher P300 readings for the sexual images. Just like addicts who show P300 spikes when presented with their drug of choice. How could she draw a conclusion that is the opposite of the actual results? I think it could be due to her preconceptions–what she expected to find.”

A month later John A. Johnson PhD published a Psychology Today blog post about Prause’s EEG study and what he perceived as biases on both sides of the issue. Nicole Prause (as anonymous) commented underneath his post taking Johnson to task for linking to this YBOP critique. Johnson replied with the following comment for which Prause had no response:

If the point of the study was to show that “all people” (not just alleged sex addicts) show a spike in P300 amplitude when viewing sexual images, you are correct–I do not get the point, because the study employed only alleged sex addicts. If the study *had* employed a non-addict comparison group and found that they also showed the P300 spike, then the researchers would have had a case for their claim that the brains of so-called sex addicts react that same as non-addicts, so maybe there is no difference between alleged addicts and non-addicts. Instead, the study showed that the self-described addicts showed the P300 spike in response to their self-described addictive “substance” (sexual images), just like cocaine addicts show a P300 spike when presented with cocaine, alcoholics show a P300 spike when presented with alcohol, etc.

—————-

Prause adds to the above tweet, with more false statements (as always, Prause links to no examples of misrepresentations – because there are none):

Prause’s falsehoods concerning FTND are exposed in her Salt Lake Tribune Op-Ed attacking FTND. This 600-word Op-Ed is chock full of unsupported assertions meant to fool the lay public. It fails to support a single assertion as it cites only 4 papers – none of which have anything to do with porn addiction, porn’s effects on relationships, or porn-induced sexual problems.

I and several other experts in this field debunked its assertions and empty rhetoric in this relatively short response – Op-ed: Who exactly is misrepresenting the science on pornography? (2016). Unlike the “neuroscientists of the Op-Ed,” we cited support for our views in the form of several hundred studies and multiple reviews of the literature.

——————–

Trolling PornHarms: Offering free t-shirts to others willing to troll with her. The t-shirts are a tasteless parody of the FTND porn kills love t-shirts

Follows up with free t-shirts to the other twitter trolls:

—————

A few examples of David Ley cyber-stalking FTND

Ley going out of his way to troll FTND:

————–

Over the years we have seen FTND state that it has received no funding from the Mormon Church. Not surprising, Politico provided no documentation for this assertion (not even a link to another hit piece). Was it simply fabricated, or fed to Politico?

————–

Notice how Ley can give no examples.

————–

Again, never an example of “pseudoscience”. Ley has never once excerpted an example from the FTND website.

————–

More trolling by Ley

Update: David J Ley is now being paid by the porn industry to promote their websites, while he fervently denies the harms of porn. See – Ongoing – David J. Ley is now collaborating with porn industry giant xHamster to promote its websites and convince users that porn addiction and sex addiction are myths.

—————-

For no reason, tweeting her debunked op-ed for the world to see:

—————

Prause tweets a hit-piece by a college newspaper:

Gary Wilson debunks the hit-piece with this series of tweets exposing the article’s falsehoods. The two college students fail to address a single point. Instead, they resort to blocking Wilson.

—————–

Through FOI requests, Prause obtained Senator Weiler’s emails. She has excerpted one email, mischaracterized what it said and has tweeted it multiple times. Once again in 2019:

Email said that they should focus on protecting children, and not tell adults what they can or cannot do. Who would disagree with that?

——————–

More trolling, falsehoods:

Actually, Prause’s 600-word op-ed was complete debunked here – Op-ed: Who exactly is misrepresenting the science on pornography? (2016)

David Ley joing in, again:

———————

RealYBOP (Prause aliases) cites an article by the Adult Video News (AVN) to disparage FTND. Sounds like someone is back tracking as no amount of editing could put words in the former porn star’s mouth (and he hasn’t asked FTND to take down the interview). Interview: Most Successful Male Porn Star Of All Time Speaks Out On Porn

While Prause and RealYBOP have posted countless times that FTND misrepresents studies, they never link to an example of misrepresentation. Never.

——————–

A RealYBOP (Prause) tweet that is unrelated to Fight The New Drug, cites Prause’s debunked op-ed disparaging FTND:

Reality concerning her 600-word op-ed: Op-ed: Who exactly is misrepresenting the science on pornography? (2016)

——————————-

Falsehoods about FTND (October, 2019) by Prause & Burgess alias:

More of the same BS from RealYBOP/Prause/Burgess:

—————————–

RealYBOP making false and disparaging statements:

In reality, FTND does “work with scientists”.

——————————-

RealYBOP going to bat for the porn industry, while simultaneously attacking Fight The New Drug:

Data? RealYBOP failed to cite a single study. Here are six studies confirming mental and physical health problems of female performers.

——————–

November, 2019: RealYBOP randomly disparaging Fight The New Drug:

Tweet #1: The panelists for the Mormon Matters podcast lied about most everything.

Tweet #2: Several experts in this field and I debunked its assertions and empty rhetoric in this relatively short response – Op-ed: Who exactly is misrepresenting the science on pornography? (2016). Unlike the “neuroscientists of the Op-Ed,” we cited several hundred studies and multiple reviews of the literature.

—————————-

RealYBOP randomly disparaging Fight The New Drug:

Tweet #1: The panelists lied about most everything.

Tweet #2: Several experts in this field and I debunked its assertions and empty rhetoric in this relatively short response – Op-ed: Who exactly is misrepresenting the science on pornography? (2016). Unlike the “neuroscientists of the Op-Ed,” we cited several hundred studies and multiple reviews of the literature.

———————

December, 2019: RealYBOP uses 4 tweets to misrepresent a FTND article about a study:

Full study here and the FTND article here –Research Reveals Child-On-Child Sexual Abuse Directly Linked To Porn. Nothing “fake” about the FTND article as the study and its author saw porn use as significant factor in child on child sexual abuse.

Excerpts from study:

The third opportunity for prevention identified by the young people related to the trouble they had managing pornography. Out of the 14 young people, 12 talked about being exposed to pornography and three talked about how pornography was one of the factors that triggered their harmful sexual behavior. They implied the likelihood of their harmful sexual behavior occurring could have been reduced if pornography had not been present.

The study’s authors:

“We can’t, on the one hand, say we don’t want to talk with young children about sexuality, while on the other hand do nothing about the multi-billion-dollar pornography industry and the telecommunications industry that is enabling access,” McKibbin added.
“It may be that government needs to intervene at this point. Pornography can’t be seen as the sole responsibility of parents or schools because it has gone way beyond that. We probably need to engage directly with the pornography industry and the telecommunications industry,” she said.

———————-

Cyberstalker and porn industry shill RealYBOP tweets in FTND thread under a porn star (RealYBOP has blocked FTND, but still trolls their threads). The tweet has nothing to do with FTND or its tweet. Instead, RealYBOP is once again defaming NoFap (NoFap founder Alexander Rhodes has filed a defamation lawsuit against Nicole Prause – who is thought to be RealYBOP)

———————

RealYBOP uses 4 tweets to misrepresent a FTND article about a study:

Full study here and the FTND article here –Research Reveals Child-On-Child Sexual Abuse Directly Linked To Porn. Nothing “fake” about the FTND article as the study and its author saw porn use as significant factor in child on child sexual abuse.

Excerpts from study:

The third opportunity for prevention identified by the young people related to the trouble they had managing pornography. Out of the 14 young people, 12 talked about being exposed to pornography and three talked about how pornography was one of the factors that triggered their harmful sexual behavior. They implied the likelihood of their harmful sexual behavior occurring could have been reduced if pornography had not been present.

The study’s authors:

“We can’t, on the one hand, say we don’t want to talk with young children about sexuality, while on the other hand do nothing about the multi-billion-dollar pornography industry and the telecommunications industry that is enabling access,” McKibbin added.
“It may be that government needs to intervene at this point. Pornography can’t be seen as the sole responsibility of parents or schools because it has gone way beyond that. We probably need to engage directly with the pornography industry and the telecommunications industry,” she said.

———————-

Porn industry shill RealYBOP/Prause tweeting propaganda by porn industry representative XBIZ while attacking FTND:

Original news segment: https://wset.com/news/local/pornography-the-new-gateway-drug

Same day, targeting FTND again.

The FTND article:

https://web.archive.org/web/20200414074915/https://fightthenewdrug.org/serial-killer-ted-bundy-last-interview/

————————–

RealYBOP misappropriates tragic events to target FTND, claiming its board is all white. Then she goes racist on us:

RealYBOP may want to reconsidering throwing stones: Her house is glass – the Liberos LLC board, collaborators, and employees are all white.

——————————

RealYBOP Cyberstalking FTND with her usual falsehoods and unsupported claims. First, RealYBOP has no idea who FTND “works with”. Second, strengthening pathways is called sensitization (cue-reactivity & cravings). Sensitization alters numerous synapses connecting various aspects of the reward system, which results in increased “wanting” or craving while liking or pleasure diminishes. As of 2020 there 24 neuroscience-based studies reporting sensitization or cue-reactivity in porn users/sex addicts: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24.

———————-
RealYBOP/Prause attacking FTND with Prause’s long since debunked 600-word op-ed:

Prause’s Op-Ed is chock full of unsupported assertions meant to fool the lay public. It fails to support a single assertion as it cites only 4 papers – none of which have anything to do with porn addiction, porn’s effects on relationships, or porn-induced sexual problems. Several experts in this field and I debunked its assertions and empty rhetoric in this relatively short response – Op-ed: Who exactly is misrepresenting the science on pornography? (2016). Unlike the “neuroscientists of the Op-Ed,” we cited several hundred studies and multiple reviews of the literature.

———————-

RealYBOP claims that “your groups” are viciously attacking Emily Rothman’s porn literacy courses. RealYBOP provides no evidence.

In same thread, RealYBOP defends pornhub while defaming FTND:

RealYBOP tweets her joke of an op-ed for the 100th time. The 600-word Op-Ed is chock full of unsupported assertions meant to fool the lay public. It fails to support a single assertion as it cites only 4 papers – none of which have anything to do with porn addiction, porn’s effects on relationships, or porn-induced sexual problems. Several experts in this field debunked its assertions and empty rhetoric in this relatively short response – Op-ed: Who exactly is misrepresenting the science on pornography? (2016). Unlike the “neuroscientists of the Op-Ed,” they cited several hundred studies and multiple reviews of the literature.

————————

Porn industry shill RealYBOP just making stuff up, attacking Terry Crews (while disparaging FTND) for tweeting that PornHub needs to be defunded for hosting child porn and sex trafficking videos. RealYBOP is directly supporting Pornhub’s activities!

Mindgeek thanks you, RealYBOP.

————————————

Fight The New Drug op-ed. LOL:

Another tweet the next day in the same thread:

Prause’s (REalYBOP) 600-word Op-Ed is chock full of unsupported assertions meant to fool the lay public. It fails to support a single assertion as it cites only 4 papers – none of which have anything to do with porn addiction, porn’s effects on relationships, or porn-induced sexual problems. Several experts in this field debunked its assertions and empty rhetoric in this relatively short response – Op-ed: Who exactly is misrepresenting the science on pornography? (2016). Unlike the “neuroscientists of the Op-Ed,” they cited several hundred studies and multiple reviews of the literature.

—————————-

There are more tweets, but this will suffice to expose Prause (RealYBOP) as an obsessive cyberstalker.

Ongoing – Prause falsely states that FTND said her research was funded by the porn industry (attempting to divert attention from her own documented porn-industry associations)

Several 2018 tweets attacking FTND contain the same text and two screenshots: 1) an excerpt from a Politico article asserting that FTND was “seeded with millions of dollars from the Mormon Church”; 2) an excerpt from an email that may or may not have been sent by FTND:

Again, the same tweet (November, 2018):

Over the years we have seen FTND state that it has received no funding from the Mormon Church. Not surprising, Politico provided no documentation for this assertion (not even a link to another hit piece). Was it simply fabricated, or fed to Politico?

Apart from offering no support for her Mormon-funding assertion, Prause’s screenshots of the purported email are a bit curious. Instead of providing a screenshot of an entire email, Prause provides a screenshot of a letterhead, and a second screenshot of an out-of-context paragraph.

The letterhead:

The out-of-context paragraph, which did not, in fact, claim that Prause’s research was funded by the porn industry:

Instead of saying Prause’s research was funded by the porn industry, the email wondered if Prause had been “influenced by someone within the porn industry.” Mind you, this email is dated April, 2016, before Nicole Prause exponentially increased her harassment and libel (as documented on these pages).

While there’s no evidence of any of Prause’s victims stating that Prause receives funding from the porn industry, anyone might be forgiven for wondering if she is indeed influenced by the porn industry. The Prause pages on this website are just the tip of a very large Prause Iceberg. She has posted thousands of times, attacking everyone and anyone who suggests porn might cause problems. (Prause recently purged her twitter account of 3,000 or more incriminating tweets.) She has defended the industry at every turn, much as a paid industry thought-leader could be expected to do.

Clearly Prause, who lives in LA, enjoys a cozy relationship with the pornography industry. See this image of her (far right) apparently taken on the red carpet of the X-Rated Critics Organization (XRCO) awards ceremony. According to Wikipedia,

“The XRCO Awards are given by the American X-Rated Critics Organization annually to people working in adult entertainment and it is the only adult industry awards show reserved exclusively for industry members.^[1]“

Moreover, it appears that Prause may have obtained porn performers as subjects through the most prominent porn industry interest group, the Free Speech Coalition. FSC-obtained subjects were allegedly used for a study she was hired to perform to bolster the commercial interests of the heavily tainted, but apparently lucrative, “Orgasmic Meditation”company (which is now being investigated by the FBI). See this Twitter exchange between Prause and adult performer Ruby the Big Rubousky, who is vice president of the Adult Performers Actors Guild (Prause has since deleted this thread).

—————

In addition, the FSC (which has spent millions on lawsuits that benefit the porn industry) offered Prause assistance with respect to her so-called “bullies.”

\

The real bully was Prause, who had her Twitter account permanently banned for harassment and cyber-stalking. Instead of revealing the facts, Prause fabricated a tall-tale that John Adler MD (Stanford) somehow got her kicked off Twitter. Adler had nothing to with this. Lies upon lies.

In October, 2015 Prause emailed the FSC to accept their “help” with her imaginary bullies. Prause then promptly begins to discuss with another industry account why condoms in porn are a bad idea (the porn industry’s position):

Prause then offers help to the FSC (is this the beginnings of a mutually beneficial relationship?):

Since then, Prause has publicly assisted the FSC multiple times, including for example, supporting the FSC’s campaign against California’s ill-fated Proposition 60 (calling for condom use in porn):

——————-

Here she retweets FSC propaganda. (Note: dozens of Prause’s incriminating pro-FSC tweets have since been deleted.):

—————-

Smearing the AIDS Healthcare Foundation, while taking the side of porn industry reps:

Another Prop 60 tweet:

More about Prause’s pro-FSC actions in this section: November, 2016: Prause asks VICE magazine to fire infectious disease specialist Keren Landman, MD for supporting Prop 60 (condoms in porn).

—————-

Prause tags the FSC in her tweet attacking unfavorable research on porn performers:

—————–

In a very personal tweet, Prause sends her condolences to the family of William Margold, the former director of the Free Speech Coalition who was a co-founder of X-Rated Critics Organization (XRCO):

FYI – During the initial broadcast of NBC’s Tomorrow Coast-to-Coast with Tom Snyder, Marigold said he would consider performing a sex scene with his own daughter. When asked if he would allow his daughter to enter the porn business, Margold replied, “Not until she’s eighteen. And then I might even work with her myself.”

—————-

In a series of tweets Prause tags @XBIZ (The world leader in adult industry news), lending her support to their agendas:

Prause retweets XBIZm celebrating the demise of The Pink Cross Foundation (hated by the porn industry)

——————–

Once again, Prause enters threads of porn performers to bolster their arguments:

——————

Prause provides advice to a porn performer:

—————-

Prause tweet attacking studies reporting greater trauma in porn performers:

—————-

Once again retweeting the FSC, and lending her spin to the mix. As usual, any science Prause disputes is disreputable, while her own heavily criticized research is indisputable, even when it opposes the preponderance of expert evidence:

Prause re-tweeting AVN, who was complaining about Dallas rejecting their convention:

——————-

Prause posing with two well known porn stars:

—————

In this tweet, Prause attacks a grad student who is trying to gather data about porn performers:

Prause reported him to his university.

———————-

Yet another tweet in which Prause promotes AVN’s position on Prop 60:

——————

Retweeting AVN news:

—————

Prause describing her experiences “at AVN”:

——————

Prause describing her time spent with another pornography legend:

——————-

Again, citing a single outlier study, with a very small sample, to support the porn industry’s contention that performers are doing fine:

——————–

Retweeting porn industry propaganda, telling the world that there is no sexism in the porn industry:

Prause contends that porn-recovery sites are sexist – as is everyone who disagrees with her or anyone who critiques her studies or assertions.

—————————-

Prause tagged by PornHub. Very buddy-buddy convo:

—————–

More direct support for porn industry views:

——————

Why would a supposedly impartial researcher be tweeting about a porn performer union?

——————-

Again interacting with performers, as if she has inside connections:

——————–

Major porn producer calling Prause “our superheroine,” which Prause acknowledges:

—————

Retweets XBIZ propaganda, attacks AIDS Healthcare Foundation: https://twitter.com/AIDSHealthcare

In support of the porn industry, Prause retweets porn-producer propaganda. Prause attacks AIDS Healthcare Foundation:

—————-

Convo with porn performer/producer claiming that “anti-porn” is misogynist, yet porn performers are not:

—————

Promoting AVN/porn show:

—————–

Tagging FSC, retweeting porn industry propaganda:

—————–

Tagging FSC while attacking a UCLA medical doctor who supported the use of condoms for porn performers:

——————

A large percentage of Prause’s Quora comments were direct and indirect attacks on Gary Wilson (ultimately Prause was banned for harassing Wilson: March 5, 2018 – Prause permanently banned from Quora for harassing Gary Wilson). In this Quora answer Prause responds as if she is an expert on a career in porn:

———————

Here she answers again as if she is an expert on the porn industry. Prause’s propaganda is that porn industry is poor, and that many “harassers” say her research is funded by the porn industry:

Prause has never provided any documentation of anyone saying she is funded by the porn industry. The claim that her science has not been challenged is laughable as there are 12 peer-reviewed critiques of her flawed studies and her unsupported claims about them: Questionable & Misleading Studies.

—————–

Add to the above examples hundreds of social media attacks and behind the scenes harassment of any researcher, person, or organization reporting less than stellar effects of porn use or performing in porn. Just a few examples of 2,000 or more similar tweets (most of which have since been deleted):

Nonsense. The vast preponderance of legitimate studies on porn report negative outcomes: https://www.yourbrainonporn.com/research/

—————

The only study that Prause can cite that reported more so-called egalitarian views is a Taylor Kohut study with some very creative methodology apparently employed to produce the desired results: Critique of “Is Pornography Really about “Making Hate to Women”? Pornography Users Hold More Gender Egalitarian Attitudes Than Nonusers in a Representative American Sample” (2016). In reality, Kohut’s findings are contradicted by nearly every other published study (see this list of over 25 studies linking porn use to sexist attitudes, objectification and less egalitarianism). See this 2016 review of the literature: Media and Sexualization: State of Empirical Research, 1995–2015.

And on and on it goes with Nicole Prause and the porn industry. For many more exmaples of Prause’s intimate relationships with members of the porn industry and her support of porn industry agendas see – Is Nicole Prause Influenced by the Porn Industry?.

Is it any surprise that FTND, or anyone else, might wonder if Prause, a former academic with a long history of harassing authors, researchers, therapists, reporters and others who dare to report evidence of harms from internet porn use, who lives in LA, who has obtained study subjects through the FSC, who hangs out with big names in the industry, who attends porn industry award ceremonies, and who has publicly been offered (and accepted) support by the FSC, might be influenced by the porn industry?

Again, no one has claimed Prause receives direct funding from the FSC. In fact, it seems most unlikely that the FSC would make any such arrangements directly, let alone make them public, even if they did exist. Nor has anyone stated that Prause is “in the porn industry” or “has, herself appeared in pornograpy“, as she falsely asserted in her bogus cease and desist letters, and in her response to Don Hilton, MD’s defamation lawsuit. See:

November, 2018: FBI affirms Nicole Prause’s fraud surrounding defamatory claims (Prause lied about reporting Wilson to the FBI)

Updates: This section is now part of of a defamation lawsuit by Don Hilton, MD, and is described in this affidavit: July, 2019: Gary Wilson affidavit: Donald Hilton defamation lawsuit against Nicole R Prause & Liberos LLC.

Beginning in July, 2013 (a few days after Wilson published his careful critique of Prause’s first EEG study) various usernames began posting defamatory comments wherever Gary Wilson’s name appeared. The comments were very similar in content and tone, falsely claiming that “Wilson has a police report filed on him,” “Wilson is charged with stalking a poor woman,” and that “Wilson has been reported to LAPD (which agrees that he’s dangerous) and the UCLA campus police.”

Very shortly, Prause, as herself, began to claim that a “person” had been reported to the police for physically stalking her, threatening her lab, mapping a route to her lab (whatever that means), and other vague fabrications.

By 2016, as Prause was no longer employed by UCLA or any other institution that could rein in her cyber-harassment, she finally began to identify Gary Wilson as the “person” she had reported to the LAPD and the UCLA campus police.

The facts? It has been over 5 years since her harassment began, and Wilson has never been contacted by a police department. Wilson had always presumed that Prause had, in fact, filed fraudulent, groundless reports (which were subsequently disregarded), but it turned out Prause was lying – again. In late 2017 a call to the Los Angeles Police Department and the UCLA campus police revealed no report in their systems on a Gary Wilson, nor any report filed by a Nicole Prause. Apparently Prause knows better than to waste authorities’ time with baseless complaints.

In 2018, Prause upped her game, claiming on social media (and probably in emails to journalists, conference organizers, and colleagues) that she had reported Wilson to the FBI for “physically stalking” her. This is absurd as Wilson hasn’t been in Los angles for years. Prause has even claimed that Wilson was seen outside her window.

In late October, 2018 Prause added yet another victim to her list of defamation targets. She claimed to have reported NoFap.com founder Alexander Rhodes to the FBI for calmly responding to her defamatory barrage of sickening tweets (see above).

In late October, Gary Wilson filed an FOIA request with the FBI to find out if Prause had ever filed a report naming him. She had not. Below you will find:

1) A copy of an FOIA request regarding Nicole R. Prause,

2) A letter from the FBI stating that no such report exists, and

3) Several screenshots documenting Prause falsely claiming to have reported Gary Wilson to the FBI.

Sadly, social media comments by Prause’s colleagues indicate that some actually believe she has been stalked and threatened. The facts are that she has been entirely dishonest, unprofessional and unethical in her relentless efforts to defame the blameless.

FOIA request regarding Nicole R. Prause (screenshot of email sent from FBI)

The “additional information” section asks if an FBI report has been filed on Gary Wilson (naming Prause). As you can see from the letter below, there is no FBI report.

————————————

Letter from FBI confirming that Prause never filed an FBI report on Gary Wilson:

———————————–

Prause has been lying for years about reporting Gary Wilson to the “police” or FBI – and she continues her lies to this day. Below is a sampling of Prause tweets and comments asserting that she reported Wilson to the FBI.

The following coordinated Facebook attack, involving four other cyber-harassers, was chronicled in this section: May 30, 2018: Prause falsely accuses FTND of science fraud, and implies that she has reported Gary to the FBI twice (link to Prause’s Facebook comment).

——————————–

The following is taken from the comments section under ICD-11 new proposal for “Compulsive Sexual Behavior Disorder.” Prior to the release of the “implementation version, ” a beta draft of the ICD-11 was put online, and made available for interested parties to comment on. (A simple sign-up is needed to view and participate.) Note: Prause has posted more comments in the beta-draft comment section than everyone else combined. Several Prause comments mention Gary Wilson, even though he never posted a comment. In this comment Prause falsely states that anyone is welcome to review the FBI, UCLPD, and LAPD files on Gary Wilson.

Prause never provides a link to, or a screenshot of, her many “public police and FBI reports” because they do not exist.

———————————–

Again, Prause offers the world her non-existent police and FBI reports:

————————————

In a sad and disgusting ploy, Prause convinced a site devoted to battered women that she too was a victim, and had reported the man from Oregon (where Wilson lives) to the police and FBI. They featured Prause’s tale of victim-hood in an article about social media safety. Relevant excerpt:

While the article did not name Wilson, various tweets and Prause’s Amazon pages reveal that Prause is referring to Wilson.

Wilson: “Needless to say, I have never mapped out a route to her location, or even been in LA since I have known of her existence. Nor are there FBI or police reports naming me. All her claims are fiction except for the part about her name being on my website multiple times, which are primarily on the pages chronicling her defamation and harassment.”

Prause tweeting about her “frightening cyber-stalker”:

————————————

In her 25 tweet tirade against NoFap (chronicled in this section), Prause directs gratuitous insults toward Gary Wilson and the multiple police and FBI reports she supposedly filed (Wilson was never mentioned by Nofap.com):

Prause scoured NoFap.com to produce a random comment by an excessively polite Middle Eastern man who referred to Gary Wilson as “professor.” In Prause’s bizzaro world, this comment constitutes “proof positive” that Gary Wilson claimed to be a professor (Prause’s false claims debunked here: Ongoing – Prause falsely claims that Wilson has misrepresented his credentials).

————————————

Prause not only tweets, but obsessively posts in comment sections, to the effect that Gary Wilson is a stalker who has multiple no-contact orders (he has none), has multiple police reports (he has none), and has been sent multiple cease and desist letters (Prause’s lawyer sent a single spurious C&D letter with 4 fabricated assertions – and no follow-up evidence when questioned. See – October, 2016 – Prause publishes her spurious October, 2015 “cease and desist” letter. Wilson responds by publishing his letter to Prause’s lawyer.)

This is one of 20 comments about Gary Wilson (or Wilson’s wife) that Prause posted under a “Mormon Matters” podcast: 353–354: Championing the “Addiction” Paradigm with Regard to Pornography/Sex Addiction. In Podcast 353–354, Mormon Matters host Dan Wotherspoon was joined by four panelists: Jackie Pack (LCSW, CSAT–S, CMAT), Alexandra Katehakis (MFT, CSAT-S, CST-S), Stefanie Carnes (Ph.D., CSAT-S), and Donald Hilton (M.D.). Within a few minutes of the podcast going live, Nicole Prause and, apparently, her sock puppets (“Skeptic”, “Lack of expertise on panel”, “Danny”) posted a dozen comments attacking the four panelists and Gary Wilson.

In addition to her many libelous comments, Prause falsely claimed to have sent cease & desist letters to the 4 panelists on the Mormon Matters podcast.

All of the many comments under podcast: 353–354, including several libelous ones by Prause, have mysteriously disappeared.

Even after the above documentation from the FBI proving that Prause is lying about reporting either Gary Wilson or Alexander Rhodes to the FBI, Prause continues to spread her lies. On a Sunday she Trolls the twitter thread of anti-sex trafficking, radical feminist Laila Mickelwait, repeating the same old lies in her two tweets (FBI reports, name on YBOP 82,000 times, stalking, sexual harassment, etc.).

Claims about “82,000 times” is a lie. See – Prause falsely claims in a tweet that her name appears over 35,000 (or 82,000) times on YBOP.

Obsessed stalker, strikes again…. on a Sunday.

December, 2018: Gary Wilson files an FBI report on Nicole Prause

As documented on these two pages, Nicole Prause has been claiming since 2013 that she reported me to the LAPD. In the last few years Prause has tweeted dozens of times that she has also reported me (and others) to the FBI (for what, it was never clear). In the beginning Prause employed dozens of fake usernames to post on porn recovery forums, Quora, Wikipedia, and in the comment sections under articles. Prause rarely used her real name or her own social media accounts. That all changed after UCLA chose not to renew Prause’s contract (around January, 2015).

Freed from any oversight and now self-employed, Prause began tweeting she had reported me to the FBI and LAPD. Just know that I have screenshots of about 500 Prause tweets defaming me. It is Prause who is the cyber-stalker. While I wouldn’t have put it past Prause to file false police and FBI reports, it wasn’t until 2016 that I contacted the LAPD. In a phone conversation I asked if a police report by a Nicole Prause, or on Gary Wilson, was in their database. None were. This is documented in this section: Ongoing – Los Angeles Police Department and UCLA campus police confirm that Prause lied about filing police reports on Gary Wilson

Note: while Prause claimed to have filed a police report all the way back in 2013, she provided you with an April, 2018 LAPD report. Put simply, Prause had been lying for 5 years. While the LAPD will not provide written documentation of police reports, the FBI will. In October, 2018 I filed an FOIA request with the FBI to find out if Prause had ever filed a report naming me. As expected the FOIA revealed that Prause has never filed a FBI report, even though she has tweeted this multiple times and posted this same claim on the FTND Facebook page (see this section May 30, 2018: Prause falsely accuses FTND of science fraud, and implies that she has reported Gary to the FBI twice).

For complete documentation, you can see screenshots of my FOIA request and the FBI’s response confirming Prause as lying here: November, 2018: FBI affirms Nicole Prause’s fraud surrounding defamatory claims. In addition, Prause claimed to have reported Alexander Rhodes of NoFap to the FBI. Given the seriousness of Prause’s allegations against him, Alexander Rhodes submitted a Freedom of Information request to the FBI to inquire about possible reports about himself. Again, Prause was exposed as lying. For extensive documentation on Alex Rhodes’s case see: December, 2018: FBI confirms that Nicole Prause lied about filing a report on Alexander Rhodes.

In talking to FBI agents on the phone I was encouraged to file an official FBI report on Nicole Prause. Which I did. Put simply, while Prause filed a silly police report (its not a crime to screenshot defamatory tweets), I was encouraged by an FBI agent to report Prause to both the FBI and the LAPD. My FBI report, which I have yet to place on the Prause pages, is below in a series of screenshots. The last screenshot is my signature confirming that I am aware that lying to the FBI is serious crime:

———-

———-

————–

——————

———————

Updates: This section is now part of of a defamation lawsuit by Don Hilton, MD, and is described in this affidavit: July, 2019: Gary Wilson affidavit: Donald Hilton defamation lawsuit against Nicole R Prause & Liberos LLC.

Ongoing – Los Angeles Police Department and UCLA campus police confirm that Prause lied about filing a police report on Gary Wilson

As recounted in the preceding section, starting in July, 2013 (a few days after Wilson published his careful critique of Prause’s first EEG study) various usernames began posting defamatory comments wherever Gary Wilson’s name appeared. The comments were very similar in content and tone, falsely claiming that “Wilson has a police report filed on him,” “Wilson is charged with stalking a poor woman,” and “Wilson stole a woman’s pictures and placed them on a porn site”,a nd that “Wilson has been reported to LAPD (which agrees that he’s dangerous) and the UCLA campus police.” Very shortly, Prause, as herself, began to claim that a “person” had been reported to the police for physically stalking her, threatening her lab, mapping a route to her lab (whatever that means), and other vague fabrications.

By 2016, as Prause was no longer employed by UCLA or any other institution that could rein in her cyber-harassment, she finally began to identify Gary Wilson as the “person” she had reported to the LAPD and the UCLA campus police. Prause even claimed that she posted armed guards at her public talks because Gary Wilson had threatened to attend (this is a lie and Prause has never provided documentation for this assertion. See – October, 2016 – Prause had co-presenter Susan Stiritz “warn campus police” that Gary Wilson might fly 2000 miles to listen to Prause say porn addiction isn’t real). In addition to Prause’s fabricated “warning to campus police” she placed the following falsehoods on her AmazonAWS account:

Prause: Dr. Prause had to file a police report and close and hide her UCLA laboratory under threat from this blogger and now requires physical protection at all her public talks from him. He has since been spotted in Los Angeles near the scientist’s home and LAPD threat management has been alerted.

Closed her Lab? Armed guards? Spotted near her home? All this because YBOP critiqued her 2013 EEG study?The facts? All these claims are untrue, and the claim that “Wilson has been spotted seen near the scientist’s home” is also fiction. Wilson hasn’t been to LA in years.

It has been over 5 years since Prause’s harassment began, and Wilson has never been contacted by a police department. Wilson had always presumed that Prause had, in fact, filed fraudulent, groundless reports (which were subsequently disregarded), but it turned out Prause was lying – again. In late 2017 a call to the Los Angeles Police Department and the UCLA campus police revealed no report in their systems on a Gary Wilson, nor any report filed by a Nicole Prause. Apparently Prause knows better than to waste authorities’ time with baseless complaints.

Update: This section is now part of a defamation lawsuit by Don Hilton, MD, and is described in this affidavit: July, 2019: Gary Wilson affidavit: Donald Hilton defamation lawsuit against Nicole R Prause & Liberos LLC.

Below we provide a sampling of Prause and her many internet aliases posting that Gary Wilson had been reported to the police for “stalking”, “stealing photos” or over-all badness (PDF of Nicole Prause aliases she used to harass & defame).

Right after Wilson critiqued Prause’s July, 2013 EEG study many comments by GaryWilson Stalker, GaryWilson IsAFraud, and other sock puppets began to appear:

————————–

—————————-

—————————-

—————————-

—————————-

—————————-

—————————-

—————————-

—————————-

—————————-

—————————-

—————————-

—————————-

Prause also posted PDF’s – with all her lies – on document sites in late July, 2013.

—————————-

After 3 years of hiding behind fake usernames, and freed of any employer, Prause starts tweeting the same lies that as her many aliases – Gary Wilson’s been reported to the police, and has a no-contact order, etc:

No, Wilson did not contact Prause.

—————————-

—————————-

Tweeting her talk about her (non-existent) victim-hood:

——————————-

Tweeting her colleagues that she has been threatened, yet Prause never provides documentation.

——————————–

Prause tweets article where she claimed to have spent thousands on “stalkers’, when in fact she paid a lawyer for her spurious cease and desist letters to intimidate those that had critiqued her studies and her unsupported claims (see – Ongoing – Prause silencing people with fake “no contact” demands and spurious cease & desist letters):

——————————–

Prause, with her potent media services, gets another bogus article placed:

——————————–

Once again, using any opportunity to claim victimhood:

——————————–

Prause’s presentations at major conferences include her false tales of being stalked and needing to file police reports:

———————————

Another talk, at her alma mater (Kinsey Institute) detailing fabricated attacks and nonexistent misogyny:

——————————–

After her UCLA contract was “not renewed” (early 2015), Prause escalated into naming Wilson as “the stalker” she had reported to police.

Let’s start the “info-graphic” that Prause has tweeted about 40 times in the last two years. Link to Prause’s amazon page – https://s3-us-west-1.amazonaws.com/weilerdefamation/SexismInNeuroscience.jpg

Over the last few years, Dr. Prause appears to have taken great pains to position herself as a “woman being subjected to misogynistic oppression when she tells truth to power.” She frequently tweets this infographic that she apparently also shares at her public lectures, suggesting she is being victimized “as a woman scientist,” and painting herself as a trailblazer forging ahead to prove porn’s harmlessness despite prejudiced attacks. She has even been known to tweet combinations of misogyny claims and claims that (legitimate, peer-reviewed) science with which she disagrees is “fake.” Any suggestion that Wilson, Deem or Rhodes, Don Hilton, or Marnia Robinson are motivated by misogyny is fabricated, as their objections have nothing to do with Dr. Prause as a person or as a woman, and only to do with her untrue statements and inadequately supported claims about her research.

NOTE:

1) Not a single Prause claim is supported by documentation. The only bits of evidence she provides are her spurious cease and desist letters with their false allegations.

2) Nearly every tweet below (and hundreds more of a similar nature) HAVE SINCE BEEN DELETED BY PRAUSE. If Prause were truly a victim of Wilson and others, why did she purge her twitter feed?

Here Prause accuses everyone of stalking:

—————————-

Names Wilson as “The Cyberstalker” on Quora. Prause was ultimately banned from Quora for harassing Wilson. The claims about Wilson misrepresenting himself are lies and based on a web page that no longer exists, and was most likely created by Prause:

For more see:

—————————-

Who’s doing the stalking when Wilson never tweets about Prause yet she has tweeted about Wilson over 500 times as herself, and commented about Wilson with over 100 internet aliases (PDF of Nicole Prause aliases she used to harass & defame).

—————————-

More lies about police reports:

—————————-

Armed guards:

—————————-

Just like the earlier aliases, Prause claims stolen photos, stalking, and armed guards:

—————————-

The twitter convo is about Wilson:

—————————-

More lies about threats and non-existent police reports:

—————————-

Tagging researchers with her false tale of being ‘physically stalked”

As explained elsewhere most instances of “Prause” occur on the pages chronicling Prause’s harassment and libel.

—————————-

Prause is a regular commentator under Psychology Today blog posts. Sometimes she uses her name, often she does not. Either way, Prause cannot engage in substantive debate. She usually responds with personal attacks and unsupported claims of victim-hood.

—————————-

—————————-

Prause as anonymous, in this thread where she started out using her real name {https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/comment/886703#comment-886703}

—————————-

Prause as anonymous [https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/comment/887844#comment-887844] (she cannot respond to a post with citations):

—————————-

A sampling of 20 comments about Gary Wilson (or Marnia Robinson) that Prause posted under a “Mormon Matters” podcast: 353–354: Championing the “Addiction” Paradigm with Regard to Pornography/Sex Addiction. In Podcast 353–354, Mormon Matters host Dan Wotherspoon was joined by four panelists: Jackie Pack (LCSW, CSAT–S, CMAT), Alexandra Katehakis (MFT, CSAT-S, CST-S), Stefanie Carnes (Ph.D., CSAT-S), and Donald Hilton (M.D.). Within a few minutes of the podcast going live, Nicole Prause and, apparently, her sock puppets (“Skeptic”, “Lack of expertise on panel”, “Danny”) posted a dozen comments attacking the four panelists and Gary Wilson.

Over and over Prause falsely claims that Wilson has a “no-contact order” (she doesn’t, and there is no such thing). Prause always asserts she has a imaginary no-contact order, or FBI report, or police report, because she cannot engage in actual debate.

Her lies about “police reports”, stalking, that Wilson said she “appeared in porn” (LOL), etc:

—————————-

More of the same falsehoods, incuding stalking, no-contact orders, etc.

—————————-

Prause falsely claims that Gary Wilson is a stalker legally prohibited from commenting anywhere on the internet.

—————————-

Once again Prause points out that her name appears on YBOP over 2,000 times, failing to mention that most instances occur on the pages chronicling Prause’s behaviors:

Will Prause’s upcoming “laboratory study” negate hundreds of studies performed over the last few decades? Highly unlikely as we already know a great deal about her upcoming research on “partnered sexual behaviors.” Prause was commissioned as a hired-gun to do a “study” on the heavily tainted and very commercial “Orgasmic Meditation” scheme, which is now being investigated by the FBI. (partnered clitoral stroking). It appears that Prause may have obtained porn performers as subjects through another porn industry interest group, the Free Speech Coalition. See this Twitter exchange between Prause and adult performer, Ruby the Big Rubousky, who is vice president of the Adult Performers Actors Guild (Prause has since deleted this thread).

—————————

Threatening to have Psychology Today commenters arrested for violating imaginary “no-contact” orders.

—————————

Prause on quora lying about filing Police reports on Gary Wilson (Prause was later banned for harrasing Wilson)

—————————

Another Quora post by Prause. More of the same. Her only documentation are her own cease and desist letters, with fabricated assertions.

————————–

Another Quora post by Prause, with the usual falsehoods about Wilson

————————–

Another quora post, collapsed by mods, with the infographic featuring Wilson and his wife, and usual lies about being a victim of Wilson:

————————–

More of the same about Wilson

————————-

Prause created at least 50 usernames to post on reddit/pornfree. Here’s an example of Prause mentioning a police report:

(PDF of Nicole Prause aliases she used to harass & defame)

—————————-

Here’s Prause as PornHelps (Prause created a twitter account, website, and social media counts as “PornHelps”). Prause later deleted those accounts when she was outed as PornHelps – Nicole Prause as “PornHelps” (on Twitter, website, comments). Accounts and website deleted once Prause was outed as “PornHelps”

—————————-

The above tweets and comments are just a taste of Prause’s obsessive harassment and defamation of Gary Wilson.

Update: July, 2019: Gary Wilson affidavit: Donald Hilton defamation lawsuit against Nicole R Prause & Liberos LLC.

Others – November, 2018: Prause resumes her unprovoked, libelous attacks on NoFap.com & Alexander Rhodes

Nicole Prause’s obsessive cyber-harassment of Nofap.com and founder Alexander Rhodes (and men trying to quit porn) resumed even after her multiple unmerited attacks in October, 2018. Right after Thanksgiving Prause tweeted Huffpost journalist Andy Campbell with her usual concoction of falsehoods and guilt-by-association ad hominem fallacies:

As described above, Alexander Rhodes debunked Prause’s malicious attempts to assert guilt-by-association by citing Twitter users who do not represent Nofap.com and are not members of Nofap.com. (In fact, Nofap.com had sent the Twitter account cited by Prause (“NoFap ResistanceArmy”) a cease and desist letter.)

Another Prause tweet responding to journalist Andy Campbell:

Andy Campbell has written several articles quoting Prause as the world’s only expert on porn’s effects – including an article for Penthouse Magazine, featuring Prause (no bias with Campbell).

Once again we have the cyber-stalker and harasser playing the victim. Propaganda in its purest form.

Others – December, 2018: Prause joins Xhamster to smear NoFap & Alexander Rhodes; induces Fatherly.com to publish a hit-piece where Prause is the “expert”

Prause’s obsessive cyber-stalking and defamation of Alexander Rhodes and Nofap continue. Apparently, Prause’s expensive PR firm and query bombardment of media outlets resulted in yet another hit piece, published by Fatherly.com (written by Lauren Vinopal). The “journalist” did little more than copy and paste Prause’s Twitter threads, quoting her as the world’s expert on everything related to Nofap.com, reddit/nofap, and men trying to quit porn.

First, here’s the barrage of unprovoked tweets, which mirrors previous unsupported drivel in this same “quitting porn causes fascism” (huh?) press campaign. Prause’s first tweet is on the Xhamster thread smearing Nofap. Prause falsely states that Rhodes “worked with” VICE founder Gavin McGinnes:

Rhodes was interviewed once, years ago, by McGinnes – before the existence of “Proud Boys.” (McInnes has since publicly divorced himself from Proud Boys.) In any case, as Alexander Rhodes explained on Twitter, at the time of the interview, as far as he and others knew McGinnes was simply the co-founder of VICE Media. Rhodes never promoted or worked with McGinnes – or Proud Boys.

On the other hand, Prause joined Xhamster’s thread with the above tweet. Does this mean she is “working with” a major porn site to attack a porn-recovery forum (again)? This occurred after Xhamster complained to the world that NoNut November was affecting its bottom line:

Here’s a second Prause tweet in the Xhamster thread, where she spreads more of her toxic misinformation and tells Xhamster to Direct Message her:

The FBI confirmed that Prause has been lying about her claims to have filed FBI reports: November, 2018: FBI affirms Nicole Prause’s fraud surrounding defamatory claims. Prause is also lying when she says Gary Wilson physically stalked her: Los Angeles Police Department and UCLA campus police confirm that Prause lied about filing police reports on Gary Wilson.

What is true? Nicole Prause appears to be “working with” Xhamster to spread falsehoods about Nofap, Alex Rhodes, and Gary Wilson. For much more on Prause’s very cozy relationship with the porn industry, see: Is Nicole Prause Influenced by the Porn Industry?

On the same day Prause repeats her lies on a Sarah Manavis‏ thread promoting the Manavis article attacking Nofap, supporting Xhamster, and parroting everything Prause has tweeted in the previous 3 weeks:

It’s highly suspicious that Sarah Manavis somehow knew about a random xHamster Twitter thread, that her hit piece closely mirrors Prause talking points, and that Manavis did not contact Alexander Rhodes for comment. Did Prause “work with” Sara Manavis behind the scenes?

A few days later Prause crows about the Fatherly.com piece she helped with:

This series of escalating press events follows the telltale pattern of a carefully seeded-and-inflated press propaganda campaign. (See Trust Me, I’m Lying: Confessions of a Media Manipulator for the recipe used.)

Thus, the Fatherly.com article rests on Ley & Prause’s Psychology Today article labeling porn recovery forum as fascists, Sarah Manavis’s hit-piece, and all of Prause tweets and Psychology Today comments. The Fatherly.com hit-piece liberally quotes Prause as the world’s expert on Nofap.com and men who quit porn:

“I think ‘No Nut November’ is largely anti-science,” psychophysiologist and neuroscientist Nicole Prause, told Fatherly. “The new designation, and it is hardly a tradition, appears supported most by the for-profit NoFap company, some religious organizations, and groups like Proud Boys. These are largely known for their very young male members and misogyny.”

More lies as NoFap.com had nothing to do with NoNutNovember, and claims that there’s a link between quitting porn and misogyny are the exact opposite of what the research shows and what men on the forums report.

The truth? The origins of NoNutNovember, and other “no fap” months, can be traced to a 2006 Subaru Imprezza thread. This was going on long before r/nofap was created on June 20th, 2011. Note that NoFap’s guidelines say porn is forbidden, but sex is just great. Not exactly a trend that XHamster, or its supporters, want to see. After all, it hurts their bottom line…by their own public admission.

Just for the fun of it, Prause adds another tweet (with the same lies) into the mix:

Gotta give it up to Prause. It appears that with the aid of her PR firm, and apparently Xhamster, her tireless work paid off. It all started with Ley’s (and her) inflammatory Psychology Today blog post… and eventually mushroomed into a propaganda meme that “the little ol’ porn industry is the victim of evil younguns who no longer watch porn.” Sadly, this fabricated meme has now been recklessly pumped up by irresponsible “journalists” who are able to disregard facts, common sense, and peer-reviewed studies.

April 25, 2019 – Ley retweets a Xhamster tweet of his fascist PT blog post:

Update: This section is now part of two defamation lawsuits:

Ongoing – David Ley is now being collaborating porn industry giant xHamster to promote its websites and convince users that porn addiction and sex addiction are myths!

Conflicts of interest (COI) are nothing new for David Ley. Lawyers pay him good money to “debunk” sex & porn addiction; he sells books “debunking” sex & porn addiction; he collects speaking fees for “debunking” sex & porn addiction. All this while harassing and defaming individuals and organizations who speak up about the possible negative effects of internet porn.

However, Ley officially has now crossed the line. In a blatant financial conflict of interest, David Ley is being collaborating porn industry giant xHamster to promote their websites and to convince users that porn addiction and sex addiction are myths! Notice how Ley is going to tell xHamster customers what “medical studies truly say about porn, camming and sexuality”:

Will Ley tell xHamster customers that every study ever published on males (about 65) links more porn to less sexual and relation satisfaction? Will Ley tell them that all 46 neurological studies on porn users/sex addicts report brain changes seen in drug addicts? Will he inform his audience that 50% of porn users report escalating to material they previously found uninteresting or disgusting? Somehow I doubt it.

Specifically, David Ley and the newly formed Sexual Health Alliance (SHA) have partnered with a xHamster website (Strip-Chat). See “Stripchat aligns with Sexual Health Alliance to stroke your anxious porn-centric brain.” In their promotional tweet we are promised a slate of SHA brain experts to soothe users “porn anxiety” and “shame” (Ley and other SHA “experts” are light years away from being brain experts).

The fledgling Sexual health Alliance (SHA) advisory board includes David Ley and two other RealYourBrainOnPorn.com “experts” (Justin Lehmiller and Chris Donaghue). RealYBOP is a group of openly pro-porn, self-proclaimed “experts” headed by Nicole Prause. This group is currently engaged in illegal trademark infringement and squatting directed toward the legitimate YBOP. Put simply, those trying to silence YBOP are also being paid by the porn industry to promote its/their businesses, and assure users that porn and cam sites cause no problems. (Note: Nicole Prause has close, public ties to the porn industry as documented on this page.)

The official StripChat Twitter account reveals the true reason for paying SHA “experts”: to soothe their anxieties to prevent the loss of paying customers. The SHA will accomplish this by “talking about the latest research on sex, camming and addiction,” that is, cherry picking the work done by “their” researchers. Will Ley/SHA mention that hundreds of studies link porn use to myriad negative effects?

In this article, Ley dismisses his compensated promotion of the porn industry:

Granted, sexual health professionals partnering directly with commercial porn platforms face some potential downsides, particularly for those who’d like to present themselves as completely unbiased. “I fully anticipate [anti-porn advocates] to all scream, ‘Oh, look, see, David Ley is working for porn,’” says Ley, whose name is routinely mentioned with disdain in anti-masturbation communities like NoFap.

But even if his work with Stripchat will undoubtedly provide fodder to anyone eager to write him off as biased or in the pocket of the porn lobby, for Ley, that tradeoff is worth it. “If we want to help [anxious porn consumers], we have to go to them,” he says. “And this is how we do that.”

Biased? Ley reminds us of the infamous tobacco doctors, and the Sexual health Alliance reminds us of the Tobacco Institute.

While being paid by the porn industry is the most egregious conflict of interest (COI), Ley has a few more.

Conflict of Interest #2 David Ley is being paid to debunk porn and sex addiction. At the end of this Psychology Today blog post Ley advertises his services:

“Disclosure: David Ley has provided testimony in legal cases involving claims of sex addiction.”

In 2019 David Ley’s new website offered his well-compensated “debunking” services:

David J. Ley, Ph.D., is a clinical psychologist and AASECT-certified supervisor of sex therapy, based in Albuquerque, NM. He has provided expert witness and forensic testimony in a number of cases around the United States. Dr. Ley is regarded as an expert in debunking claims of sexual addiction, and has been certified as an expert witness on this topic. He has testified in state and federal courts.
Contact him to obtain his fee schedule and arrange an appointment to discuss your interest.

Conflict of Interest #3: Ley makes money selling two books that deny sex and porn addiction (“The Myth of Sex Addiction,” 2012 and “Ethical Porn for Dicks,” 2016). Pornhub (which is owned by porn giant MindGeek) is one of the five back-cover endorsements listed for Ley’s 2016 book about porn:

Note: PornHub was the second Twitter account to retweet RealYBOP’s initial tweet announcing its “expert” (pro-porn) website, suggesting a coordinated effort between PornHub and the RealYBOP experts. Wow!

Conflict of Interest #4: Finally, David Ley makes money via CEU seminars, where he promotes the addiction-deniers’ ideology set forth in his two books (which recklessly(?) ignore dozens of studies and the significance of the new Compulsive Sexual Behavior Disorder diagnosis in the World Health Organization’s diagnostic manual). Ley is compensated for his many talks featuring his biased views on porn use. In this 2019 presentation Ley appears to support and promote adolescent porn use: Developing Positive Sexuality and Responsible Pornography Use in Adolescents.

Others – December, 2018: FBI confirms that Nicole Prause lied about filing a report on Alexander Rhodes

As chronicled above Nicole ended her libelous Twitter tirade against Nofap and Alexander Rhodes by tweeting that she had reported Rhodes to the FBI for being “cyberstalker.” See: October, 2018: Prause tweets that she has reported “serial misogynist” Alexander Rhodes to the FBI.

As is clearly evident from the above sections, and several other sections on the 2 Prause pages, the only serial harasser here is Nicole Prause. There are no misogynists among the many Prause targets listed on these pages.

Backstory: Prause has a long history of claiming to have reported Gary Wilson to the LAPD, the UCLAPD, and the FBI, for “stalking” or “misogyny” or who knows what (as have Prause’s many sockpuppets). To convince the world that she filed police and FBI reports, Prause even offers “case numbers” to those who DM or email her. Here’s one of her many tweets claiming FBI reports:

While Prause is plainly capable of filing false police reports, the FBI, LAPD and UCLAPD have all confirmed that she hasn’t dared. She must realize that filing bogus reports could land her in a lot of trouble.

She was, and is, lying. (For more on Gary Wilson’s reports, see: November, 2018: FBI affirms Nicole Prause’s fraud surrounding defamatory claims; Los Angeles Police Department & UCLA campus police confirm that Prause lied about filing police reports on Gary Wilson.)

Back to Alexander Rhodes and Nofap. After her October 29 tweet claiming she had filed an FBI report, Prause escalated her harassment and defamation of Rhodes on Twitter and in the press. As seen below, she began by contacting a journalist and a popular porn site to let them know that Alexander Rhodes was (purportedly) under investigation by the FBI because of a report that she had submitted about him. Prause’s assorted tweets suggest the FBI report was for cyber-harassment or cyber-stalking or some other nonsense, after @NoFap refuted her lies about Rhodes being affiliated with an extremist group on Twitter. (He’s not.)

Prause tweets on a Sarah Manavis‏ thread promoting the Manavis article attacking Nofap, supporting Xhamster, and parroting everything Prause had tweeted on the subject during the previous 3 weeks:

———————

On the same day, Prause tweeted in an XHamster thread, where she spread more of her toxic defamation and told XHamster to Direct Message her:

———————

Another Prause tweet on the XHamster thread smearing Nofap. Prause falsely states that Rhodes “worked with” VICE founder Gavin McGinnes.

Rhodes was interviewed once, years earlier, by McGinnes – before the existence of “Proud Boys.” (McInnes has since publicly divorced himself from Proud Boys.) In any case, as Alexander Rhodes explained on Twitter, at the time of the interview, as far as he and others knew McGinnes was simply the co-founder of VICE Media. Rhodes never promoted or worked with McGinnes – or Proud Boys.

———————

Given the seriousness of Prause’s allegations against him, Alexander Rhodes submitted a Freedom of Information request to the FBI to inquire about possible reports about himself. He submitted the following request on November 27:

———————

And….. the verdict is in. Rhodes got word back from the FBI. Prause was lying about his FBI report, too.

———————

Prause has been lying for years about reporting Gary Wilson to “the police” and the FBI – and she continues her lies to this day, defaming yet another victim. As it did with Wilson, the FBI confirmed that Prause is lying about filing an FBI report on Alexander Rhodes (for defending himself against Prause’s obsessive, and suspiciously persistent, defamation).

Updates:

Others – January, 2019: Prause falsely accuses gay IITAP therapist of practicing conversion (reparative) therapy

Prause is obsessed with discrediting the International Institute for Trauma and Addiction Professionals (IITAP), and member therapists – many of whom treat sex and porn addiction. A few examples of Prause’s previous defamatory campaigns:

It’s 2019 and Prause is back at it with false accusation of reparative therapy. As in all previous instances Prause falsely accuses a gay man of performing conversion therapy. In the following string of bizarre tweets, Prause suggests that gay therapist Daniel P Caldwell is a reparative therapist:

Even avid fan Tony D is a bit confused by Prause’s bizarre tweet. Prause replies:

A few days later Daniel Caldwell confronts Prause. She tweets he’s a fake account:

The truth: The account is not fake. Daniel P Caldwell is listed on the LGBTQ-Affirmative Therapist Guild Directory of Therapists. Here is Caldwell’s page, and this is what he says:

Coming out is a very personal process. I am experienced in helping individuals face their sexuality in a way that will respect their personal goals and beliefs and help them find a path that will make them the happiest and help them to find the healthiest way to do that.

How can Prause continue to hold a license while engaging in targeted defamation of fellow therapists?

[Please note that as of December 28, 2022, Daniel Caldwell no longer appears to be managing an account at the address

Update: Prause & allies continue their libelous campaign

Two lies in one tweet: 1) No Nikky, treating porn addiction is not analogous to conversion therapy. 2) Wrong, The world’s most widely used medical diagnostic manual, The International Classification of Diseases (ICD-11), contains a new diagnosis suitable for porn addiction: “Compulsive Sexual Behavior Disorder.”

Close friend Joe Kort joins in:

Nikky continues on the Joe Kort thread with false allegations, and stating porn addiction is fake:

What’s fake is Prause alluding to seeing patients. Prause has stated multiple times that she sees no patients.

February, 2019: Confirmation that Prause lied to the organizers of the European Society for Sexual Medicine conference, causing the ESSM to cancel Gary Wilson’s keynote address

In the Fall of 2017, the Scientific Chairs of the World Meeting on Sexual Medicine, organized by the International Society for Sexual Medicine (ISSM) and the European Society for Sexual Medicine (ESSM), invited Gary Wilson to speak at their combined conference in Lisbon, Portugal. Unlike sexology conferences, the speakers and attendees at this one are primarily medically oriented urologists. The conference committee wanted Gary Wilson to present about porn-induced sexual dysfunctions. Wilson was, after all, the second author on the highly cited “Is Internet Pornography Causing Sexual Dysfunctions? A Review with Clinical Reports” and had given a very popular TEDx talk, “The Great Porn Experiment”, which touched on porn-induced ED. A screenshot of the formal invitation:

The committee wanted Wilson to be a keynote speaker, and proposed a talk entitled “The Great Porn Experiment (Revisited).” It was ultimately decided that the talk would be entitled, “Porn-Induced Sexual Dysfunctions.” It would be modeled on Wilson’s July, 2017, Mexico City presentation to urologists.

In relation to Prause’s later online assertions it’s important to point out that Wilson reminded the organizing committee that he did not have a PhD or MD. The committee assured him this was not a problem, and insisted Wilson present. Here’s the email confirming this account:

As you read Prause comments below, note that she falsely claims in multiple tweets that Wilson gave “false credentials” to the ESSM committee. This is clearly not true.

Here’s a screenshot, taken from the 2018 ISSM/ESSM conference website, of Gary Wilson’s scheduled talk. This was placed on their conference website in late October, for everyone to see, including Nicole Prause.

On January 12th, 2018, Wilson’s talk was cancelled, without explanation. The ISSM reimbursed Wilson for travel expenses already incurred, which it certainly would not have done had actual fraud been involved.

Although an explanation would have been interesting, Wilson didn’t really need one. Prause’s 6 years of harassment and behind the scenes maneuvering left no doubt as to who was behind the cancellation. Not only Prause, but most likely with the help of her chum and co-author Jim Pfaus (ISSM member), a sexologist who appears to have been a long-time influence at the ISSM.

As Wilson engaged in no wrongdoing, Prause apparently fabricated some crazy lies to scare off the ISSM (in keeping with her pattern of behavior documented on this page). Conjecture about two of these below.

Twelve days later (January 24, 2018) Prause admits to David Ley that Gary Wilson was “removed for an actual good reason from a conference.” (She’s the only one who seems to “know” this.)

This is a double lie. He was not removed for “an actual good reason.” As an aside, Prause’s claim that Wilson posted on Quora more “than a hundred times in the last month” is also false. In his 4 years on Quora, Gary Wilson only posted 122 times:

Between the time that Wilson received the email from the ISSM committee (1-12-2018), and Prause’s Facebook comment above (1-24-18), Wilson posted exactly zero times on Quora. A screenshot of Gary Wilson’s timeline of Quora posts (available here):

When you are a pathological liar, you can apparently lie about anything. Speaking of Quora, 5 weeks after her Facebook comment Prause was permanently banned from Quora for harassing Gary Wilson.

A few months later a Prause tweet alludes to having Wilson removed (“no-platformed”) from the ISSM conference (for supposedly presenting fake credentials. More on that below).

This brings us to 2019 and the 4-year saga of Prause trying every tactic possible to have the following paper retracted: “Is Internet Pornography Causing Sexual Dysfunctions? A Review with Clinical Reports” (Park et al., 2016). Prause is oddly obsessed with the paper and with attacking any evidence of porn-induced sexual problems. Her numerous exploits are chronicled on this extensive page: Prause’s efforts to have Behavioral Sciences review paper (Park et al., 2016) retracted.

On February 16, 2019, a sexual medicine specialist presented a talk at the 21st Congress of the European Society for Sexual Medicine on the Internet’s impact on sexuality. (This is the same conference to which Wilson was (un)invited a year earlier.) A few slides describing porn-induced sexual problems, citing Park et al., 2016, were tweeted. The tweets caused Nicole Prause, David Ley, Joshua Grubbs and their allies to initiate a Twitter-rage on Park et al., 2016.

Several of Prause’s tweets allude to a keynote address by Gary Wilson scheduled for the 2018 ESSM conference. Let’s start With Josh Grubbs and Prause teaming up to attacking Park et al., 2016. Once again Prause says that Wilson “gave false credentials” to the ESSM conference (accompanied by a picture of Gary Wilson):

Here, Prause specifically states that a talk was “removed for fraud” and the “speaker giving false credentials” (with a picture of Wilson):

——————–

On March 1, 2019, Prause tweets a double lie, clearly alluding to the ISSM. Not only did she lie about Wilson “giving fake credentials” to the ISSM, she says there was a second conference where “he already tried again”. No there wasn’t.

As we saw above, Wilson did not misrepresent his credentials. He communicated in writing with the ISSM that he is neither an MD or a PhD, and the ESSM/ISSM committee was completely fine with this.

So, what did Prause (and Pfaus) tell the committee? It’s likely that Prause fed the ISSM conference organizers her usual collection of falsehoods. For example, we suspect she pointed out that Wilson had been reported to the Oregon Board of Psychology (without cause) for “practicing psychology without a license.” We say this because, not long after the conference, Wilson received a letter from the Board exonerating him of doing so. (They were not permitted to reveal who had filed the malicious complaint.)

Around this time, Prause prepared a libelous blog piece, which she posted on an adult industry website. Prause’s “article” contained a redacted copy of Wilson’s employment records, which Prause falsely claimed were “proof” that Wilson had been fired from Southern Oregon University. Wilson had not been fired, as this page, with Wilson’s un-redacted employment records, and 2 letters from Southern Oregon University, make clear: Libelous Claim that Gary Wilson Was Fired (March, 2018. But it is likely that Prause’s behind-the-scenes reporting of her interpretation of this evidence to the conference organizers would have added to their uneasiness about featuring Wilson as a speaker.

Dr. Prause also regularly claims to people, including perhaps the conference organizers, that Wilson holds himself out as a professor. This is also untrue. (See this link for details: Ongoing – Prause falsely claims that Wilson has misrepresented his credentials.) She may also have told the organizers her oft-repeated lies that Wilson has a restraining order against him for her safety, and that he has have been reported to the FBI. There is no such “no contact” order, and Wilson has already made public a report from the FBI clearing him and confirming Prause as lying.

While it may be shocking that Prause would engage in such skulduggery, we must keep in mind that this is the same person who reported the 7 medical doctors on Park et al. to their state medical boards (the boards ignored Prause’s targeted harassment). She’s the same person who has falsely stated for 6 years that she has reported Gary Wilson to the FBI. The same person who repeatedly, falsely tweets that Fight The New Drug told its followers that “Dr. Prause should be raped.” The same person who attacked and libeled former UCLA colleague Rory C. Reid PhD. The same person who published an article on a porn site, falsely claiming that Wilson was fired from Southern Oregon University.

This conference incident was simply one of the more malicious such actions. More important, it has left key healthcare-givers and their patients ignorant of an apparent cause of sexual performance problems in young men. This serves the porn industry, the makers of sexual enhancement drugs (and their paid “thought leaders”), as well as serving the makers of penis implant devices and penile-revascularization surgery equipment.

March, 2018, Prause tweets a combination of her usual lies about “fake credentials” and sneaking into conferences, and her needing armed guards:

The lies:

1) Prause is lying about reporting Wilson to FBI. Prause also lied about reporting Alexander Rhodes:

2) Wilson has never stated that he would attend a conference where Prause was speaking. More here: October, 2016 – Prause had co-presenter Susan Stiritz “warn campus police” that Gary Wilson might fly 2000 miles to listen to Prause say porn addiction isn’t real)

3) Prause was kicked off Quora for harassing Wilson: March 5, 2018: Prause permanently banned from Quora for harassing Gary Wilson.

(Wilson was eventually banned as several big names continued to make false reports about Wilson). For example, here’s two top Quora users saying their goal is to get Wilson banned:

In addition, the top Quora poster and moderator worked for 2 years to get Wilson banned – https://www.quora.com/profile/Franklin-Veaux (he made several false reports on Wilson, accumulating “evidence” for the ban, while he simultaneously broke Quora rules by chronically naming Wilson in his comments and defaming Wilson).

June, 2022 Prause once again posts a tweet full of lies about Wilson regarding the ISSM. As shown above, Gary did not lie about his background. He did not lie in court. She is the liar.

Update: This section is now part of two defamation lawsuits, and is described in these affidavits:

Others – February, 2019: Prause falsely accuses Exodus Cry of fraud. Asks twitter followers to report the non-profit to the Missouri attorney general (for spurious reasons). Appears to have edited the CEO’s Wikipedia page.

This appears to start with Prause trolling the Twitter thread of anti-sex trafficking, radical feminist Laila Mickelwait, who is associated with Exodus Cry. Prause attempts to persuade the Twitter-sphere that her new orgasmic-meditation study debunks anything and everything one might claim about porn’s negative effects:

The irony is that it appears Prause may have obtained porn performers as subjects through the most prominent porn industry interest group, the Free Speech Coalition. FSC-obtained subjects were allegedly used for a study she was hired to perform in order to bolster the commercial interests of the heavily tainted, and very commercial “Orgasmic Meditation” scheme (which is now being investigated by the FBI). Moreover, it’s likely that none of Prause’s subjects (all females) were actual porn addicts. In addition, self-reported strength of orgasm while being masturbated by a guy (that’s orgasmic meditation) tells us nothing about porn addiction.

The next day Prause attacks anti-sex trafficking non-profit Exodus Cry. Prause lies about the CEO’s salary calling it “six-figure,” when what she tweeted shows it’s really a five-figure salary. This glaring error from a person who claims to be an expert statistician.

Prause ask her followers “to contact the attorney general for fraud.” As always Prause never describes the so-called “fraud” perpetrated on the public. In fact, Prause has never provided one iota of documentation to support her chronic allegations of fraud by the many victims she harasses and defames. It is Prause who is engaging in fraud… as always. (Nicole Prause’s Malicious Reporting and Malicious Use of Process)

Prause then asks her followers to file spurious complaints against Exodus Cry. Even providing a link for convenience.

The next day she tweets again. Funny how Prause supports the multi-billion dollar porn industry while attacking an anti-sex trafficking organization for paying their CEO a reasonable salary.

You have ask yourself why the majority of a researcher’s tweets consist of libelous attacks on those who suggest that porn may have negative effects. For much more documentation, see: Is Nicole Prause Influenced by the Porn Industry?

On the same day (February 26, 2019) that Prause posted the tweet claiming “CEO Nolon takes *far* in excess of non-profit standards from the donations given” a new user individual edited Benjamin Nolot Wikipedia page to match Prause’s tweet. The edit:

How the edit appeared on the Wikipedia page

As you can see, this solitary edit in the only one by user 67.129.129.52 (probably a fake IP address)

Since Prause has a very long history of employing multiple sockpuppets to edit Wikipedia pages, it takes very little imagination to ascertain the identity of user 67.129.129.52. A few more sections featuring Prause’s Wikipedia sock-puppets:

Prause with more lies, accusing Laila of promoting stalking and sexual harrasment

Reality: I haven’t been in Los Angeles in years. Prause provides no documentation for this claim, which she began publicizing in July, 2013 (a few days after I critiqued her EEG study). Important to note that Prause initiated her “Gary Wilson is a stalker” campaign immediately after I published my critique of Steele et al., 2013, which exposed her as misrepresenting Steele’s actual findings. Prause created numerous aliases to defame me, including this YouTube channel, GaryWilson Stalker (PDF of Nicole Prause aliases she used to harass & defame). A screenshot of my YouTube inbox from July 26, 2013 reveals Prause’s incessant cyberstalking:

Question: Did I drive 800 miles to Los Angeles on the same day I published my detailed critique to hover around UCLA, or did Prause initiate a fabricated campaign of being physically stalked on the day after my critique? Two defamation lawsuits have been filed against Prause for similar liee (Donald Hilton, MD & Nofap founder Alexander Rhodes). Let’s go to trial and expose the truth.

Update: January, 2020: RealYBOP twitter (Prause) attacks Laila Mickelwait in its defense of Pornhub’s under-age looking porn and absence of age-verification.

————————–

Others – Nicole Prause & David Ley go on a cyber-harrasment & defamation rampage in response to this article in The Guardian: Is porn making young men impotent?

Prause and Ley were upset because the Guardian Article accurately portrayed porn-induced ED. As explained on these pages, Prause & Ley are obsessed with debunking PIED having waged a 3-year war against this academic paper, while simultaneously harassing and libeling young men who have recovered from porn-induced sexual dysfunctions

Finally, it’s important to note that author Nicole Prause has close relationships with the porn industry and is obsessed with debunking PIED, having waged a 3-year war against this academic paper, while simultaneously harassing & libeling young men who have recovered from porn-induced sexual dysfunctions. See documentation: Gabe Deem #1, Gabe Deem #2, Alexander Rhodes #1, Alexander Rhodes #2, Alexander Rhodes #3, Noah Church, Alexander Rhodes #4, Alexander Rhodes #5, Alexander Rhodes #6, Alexander Rhodes #7, Alexander Rhodes #8, Alexander Rhodes #9, Alexander Rhodes #10, Alex Rhodes #11, Gabe Deem & Alex Rhodes together #12, Alexander Rhodes #13, Alexander Rhodes #14, Gabe Deem #4, Alexander Rhodes #15.

Update: David J Ley is now being paid by the porn industry to promote their websites, while he fervently denies the harms of porn. See –David J. Ley is now collaborating with porn industry giant xHamster to promote its websites and convince users that porn addiction and sex addiction are myths.

Prause tweets 3 papers (not actual studies) while defaming Alexander Rhodes of Nofap:

Prause tweets the exact same nonsense to the author of the article, Amy Fleming. (Fleming eventually makes her Twitter account private due to ongoing harassment from Prause and her fellow bullies, such as Brain Watson and David Ley)

Prause tweets again, adding her usual pack of lies about Rhodes, including her lie that she has reported Rhodes to the FBI (see – December, 2018: FBI confirms that Nicole Prause lied about filing a report on Alexander Rhodes):

Another tweet by Prause, harassing journalist Amy Fleming:

All the above is fiction, and a disgusting attempt to misinform the public. The following sections chronicle Prause and ally David Ley’s long history of cyberstalking Alexander Rhodes, including Prause lying about filing FBI reports on Gary Wilson and Alex Rhodes (and David Ley retweeting her lies):

In her tweets, Prause linked to 3 dubious papers (not actual studies). Two papers are Prause’s own propaganda, which have already been extensively dismantled. The third paper is a hit piece on Nofap by a grad student from NZ. Here are Prause’s links, each followed by debunking:
1 – https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/sm2.58 (Prause & Pfaus, 2015). Described above in multiple places. The critiques:

2 – https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10508-019-1397-6 – “Porn is for masturbation”, by Prause. Debunked here:

Critique of Nicole Prause’s “Porn Is for Masturbation” (2019)

3 – https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/1363460717740248 – “‘I want that power back’: Discourses of masculinity within an online pornography abstinence forum”. This link goes to an exchange about the paper between Bart and Prause, on Psychology Today, where Prause defamed Alexander Rhodes. It reveals that Prause is misrepresenting the paper:

https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/comment/1038506#comment-1038506

Reality:

This list contains 38 studies linking porn use/porn addiction to sexual problems and lower arousal to sexual stimuli. The first 7 studies in the list demonstrate causation, as participants eliminated porn use and healed chronic sexual dysfunctions.
In addition to the studies below, this page contains articles and videos by over 160 experts (urology professors, urologists, psychiatrists, psychologists, sexologists, MDs) who acknowledge, and have successfully treated, porn-induced ED and porn-induced loss of sexual desire.

David Ley joins Prause in the harassment of the journalist with unprofessional comments.

Kinsey grad Brian Watson joins Ley & Prause in the direct harassment of Guardian reporter Amy Fleming. Watson lies that the article cited NCOSE (it didn’t). In this tweet, Watson continues his harassment.

In reality, Fleming quoted from Alexander Rhodes’s talk given at a NCOSE event (hundreds of individuals have given talks at NCOSE). Watson is feebly attempting an ad hominem by association (in truth, Rhodes is an atheist and politically liberal), because Watson is incapable of addressing the content of Fleming’s article.

More harassment by Watson, who is obsessed with a NCOSE talk given by Rhodes:

Nope, the Guardian article didn’t “cite” NCOSE. It quoted one sentence from a NCOSE talk by Rhodes who has been featured at multiple conferences, on TV & radio, on podcasts, and in over a hundred different media outlets.

March, 2019: Prause urges journalist Jennings Brown (Senior editor & reporter at Gizmodo) to write a defamatory hit piece on Gary Wilson (she also defames former UCLA colleague Rory C. Reid)

On March 1, 2019 journalist Jennings Brown of Gizmodo.com published the following article: The Fake Sex Doctor Who Conned the Media Into Publicizing His Bizarre Research on Suicide, Butt-Fisting, and Bestiality. It was about a relatively well-known celebrity sexologist who fooled the public into believing he had obtained an MD and a PhD from Harvard Medical School (he had no advanced degrees).

The Jennings Brown article featured Prause ally David Ley as one of its “experts.” David Ley posted the Gizmodo article on his Facebook page. Nicole Prause and Tammy Ellis posted the following comments under Ley’s post, revealing that Prause sent “info” on Gary Wilson to journalist Jennings Brown (in the hope that he would write a defamatory hit-piece):

In her defamatory articles, tweets, and Quora posts Prause has knowingly and falsely stated that Gary Wilson claimed to be “professor in biology” or a “neuroscientist,” or otherwise “faked” his credentials. These 2 sections have already exposed Prause’s claims as lies:

In short, Gary was an Adjunct Instructor at Southern Oregon University and taught human anatomy, physiology and pathology at other venues. Although careless journalists and websites have assigned him an array of titles in error over the years (including a now-defunct page on a website that pirates many TEDx talks where anyone can describe a speaker without contacting them first) he has always stated that he taught anatomy, pathology and physiology (YBOP About us page). He has never said he had a PhD or was a professor.

This incident is just one of many that expose Prause as manipulating the press and governing agencies to defame and harass anyone she disagrees with. Prause also employs a PR firm to contact media outlets as avenues of her fabrications and personal attacks.

NOTE: Prause also refers to her UCLA colleague, who just happens to be Rory Reid PhD. As documented in this section, Prause (using an alias) placed several defamatory comments on the porn recovery site YourBrainRebalanced (December 5th, 2014), urging readers to report Rory Reid to California authorities. As we saw in earlier sections, Prause made a habit of commenting on YBR using various aliases. The first of these comments, by TellTheTruth, contained 2 links. One link went to a PDF on Scribd with supposed evidence supporting TellTheTruth’s claims (Prause regularly use aliases with 2-4 capitalized words as usernames).

Key #1 – The PDF contained the same Rory Reid documents that Prause placed on her AmazonAWS account two years later (confirming Prause as TellTheTruth):

Key # 2 – Not long after Prause (as “TellTheTruth”) placed her defamatory documents on YBR, UCLA decided to not renew her contract. On the other hand, Rory Reid is still at UCLA. Also See: Nicole Prause’s Malicious Reporting and Malicious Use of Process.

March 17, 2019: Article by University of Wisconsin-Lacrosse student newspaper (The Racquet) posts false police report by Nicole Prause

This extensive section concerns an article published in the University of Wisconsin-Lacrosse student newspaper: The Racquet Investigates: Fight the New Drug. This March, 17th 2019 hit-piece, masquerading as investigative journalism, targeted Fight The New Drug. Inexplicably, it gratuitously contained a section about Gary Wilson, which featured a baseless April 25, 2018 Los Angeles police report filed almost a year earlier, and supplied to The Racquet, by Nicole Prause.

In the days following publication of The Racquet hit-piece, the section about Wilson was first removed, followed by removal of the entire article. We provide background, details on the bogus police report report, and email exchanges between Wilson and The Racquet and University of Wisconsin administrators. Relevant links:

Original URL for the March 17th article, “The Racquet Investigates: Fight the New Drug” – https://web.archive.org/web/20190326190532/https://theracquet.org/5838/showcase/the-racquet-investigates-fight-the-new-drug/
The two authors of the above article (who are also the editors of the paper): Karley Betzler and Samantha Stroozas
The February 7th Samantha Stroozas article attacking Fight The New Drug
Gary Wilson’s Twitter response to Stroozas’s February 7th article – https://twitter.com/YourBrainOnPorn/status/1093585735381176320.

Background:

Since 2013 Nicole Prause has repeatedly proclaimed that she reported Gary Wilson to the LAPD and UCLAP. This defamatory assertion was addressed in several sections of the two extensive pages chronicling Prause’s defamation and harassment of Gary Wilson and others (page 1, page 2).

The facts? It has been over 6 years since Prause’s harassment began, and Wilson has never been contacted by a law enforcement department. Wilson long presumed that Prause had, in fact, filed fraudulent, groundless reports (which were subsequently disregarded), but it turned out Prause was lying – again. In late 2017 a call to the Los Angeles Police Department and the UCLA campus police revealed no report in their systems on a Gary Wilson, nor any report filed by a Nicole Prause.

While police departments do not provide written documentation confirming or denying the existence of a report (to anyone but the person who files them), the FBI does. In late 2018, Wilson filed a Freedom Of Information request with the FBI and the FBI confirmed that Prause was lying: no report had ever been filed on Wilson. See this section for the FOIA request and other documentation exposing Prause as a liar: November, 2018: FBI affirms Nicole Prause’s fraud surrounding defamatory claims.

As part of her full-service pro-porn campaign, Prause has publicly accused almost everyone who has spoken out about the risks of internet porn of serious offenses and crimes – all without one iota of objective evidence. Thus, she has repeatedly lied about reporting others to governing bodies, the police, and also the FBI.

For example, Prause ended her libelous Twitter tirade against Nofap and Alexander Rhodes by tweeting that she had reported Rhodes to the FBI for being “cyberstalker.” (See: October, 2018: Prause tweets that she has reported “serial misogynist” Alexander Rhodes to the FBI). Rhodes, like Wilson, submitted an FOIA request to the FBI. As it did with Wilson, the FBI confirmed that Prause had lied about filing an FBI report on Alexander Rhodes (for defending himself against Prause’s obsessive, and suspiciously persistent, defamation). For documentation see: December, 2018: FBI confirms that Nicole Prause lied about filing a report on Alexander Rhodes.

In response to the University of Wisconsin-La Crosse’s chapter of CRU (Campus Crusade for Christ) hosting Fight the New Drug, Samantha Strooza published her first FTND hit-piece: Viewpoint: Fight the New Drug, what exactly are you fighting? Stroozas employed multiple logical fallacies in an attempt to discredit FTND. Yet she failed to cite a single peer-reviewed paper to support various “opinions.”

Not surprisingly her “expert” was non-academic David Ley, who lied when claiming that FTND does not rely on peer-reviewed research. (Stroozas chose not to fact check Ley.) The other scientific “source” was a 500-word Salt lake Tribune op-ed by four disaffected Mormon therapists, which was thoroughly debunked by this response: Op-ed: Utah students need real sex ed and ‘Fight the New Drug’ (2016). Omitted from the response, is the therapists’ laughable assertion that masturbating to porn is neurologically no different from watching football. This Nicole Prause-spawned talking point, which exposes her ignorance of neuroscience, is refuted in this evidence-based article: Correcting Misunderstandings About Neuroscience and Problematic Sexual Behaviors (2017) by Don Hilton, MD.

Dismayed by Stroozas’s biased, factually incorrect propaganda piece, Wilson engaged The Racquet on this Twitter thread, with several tweets linking to hundreds of studies and literature reviews falsifying claims put forth in the article. Strooazs responded with three non-substantive tweets, and Wilson replied:

Faced with overwhelming empirical evidence, student editors Karley Betzler and Samantha Stroozas blocked Wilson on Twitter. This was a critical event as Betzler and Stroozas later authored the March 17th “investigative” article, using it as a vehicle for retaliation against Wilson.

The March 17th Betzler & Stroozas Fight The New Drug article contains a fraudulent police report by Nicole Prause.

As stated, the Karley Betzler and Samantha Stroozas article (“The Racquet Investigates: Fight the New Drug”) was so egregious that University of Wisconsin officials forced the student editors first to remove any mention of Wilson, and, a few days later, to delete the entire article.

Like Stroozas’s first hit-piece, the March 7th article was devoid of peer-reviewed citations or statements from academics. Instead, it featured three non-academics who regularly team up on social media to harass and defame both Wilson & Fight the New Drug: Nicole Prause, David Ley, and Daniel Burgess. These links provide examples of Prause, Ley and Burgess engaging in provable defamation and targeted harassment of FTND and Wilson:

So it’s no surprise that the Betzler & Stroozas hit-piece was little more than cobbled together Prause/Ley/Burgess tweets and Facebook comments interspersed with narrative taken from this 2015 Daily Beast article by yet another “ex-Mormon.” All the signs point to Betzler and Stroozas regurgitating whatever Prause/Ley/Burgess furnished.

In apparent retaliation for Wilson’s February Twitter comments Betzler & Stroozas created a section about Wilson, which featured a baseless April 25, 2018 (i.e., a year earlier) Los Angeles police report filed, and supplied to The Racquet, by Nicole Prause. (Screenshot of section & police report to the right.)

The purported editorial justification for the defamation of Wilson was an malicious email Prause sent to UWL’s Chapter of Cru. Prause told Cru that they were “promoting sexual harassment in your selection of Fight The New Drug for a presentation.” Prause moves on to defame Wilson, feigning concern (“I was just floored“) that FTND contained a few links to www.yourbrainonporn.com, run by Gary Wilson. Prause tells Cru that “FTND is promoting a person who is stalking and threatening scientists. Like, that is not a joke.”

Actually it is joke, a bad joke. Because Prause is the perpetrator, not the victim here. These extensive pages (1, 2, 3, 4, 5) document hundreds of incidents where Prause has defamed and harassed Wilson and many others, including Fight The New Drug, researchers, medical doctors, therapists, psychologists, colleagues from her brief stint at UCLA, a UK charity, men in recovery, a TIME magazine editor, several professors, IITAP, SASH, the academic journal Behavioral Sciences, its parent company MDPI, US Navy medical doctors, the head of the academic journal CUREUS, and the journal Sexual Addiction & Compulsivity.

Did Prause provide any documentation for her spurious assertions? Nope. Did Betzler or Stroozas ask Wilson or FTND about Prause’s suspect allegations? Nope. Did Betzler or Stroozas even bother to do a Google search? Apparently not, as the top two Google returns for “Gary Wilson Nicole Prause” are two of the four primary pages documenting Prause’s harassment and defamation of Wilson and others (including FTND):

The two “investigative journalists” hadn’t bothered to investigate.

Prause’s baseless police report didn’t report any crime, including “stalking”

As explained, Prause had been claiming since 2013 that “a police report has been filed” on Gary Wilson. However, the police never bothered to contact Wilson, and a call in 2017 to the Los Angeles police and the UCLA campus police revealed no such report in their systems. This was not surprising as Prause is a pathological liar and filing a false police report is a crime.

Perhaps motivated by YBOP exposing her lies, Prause brazenly filed her bizarre police police report on April 25, 2018 – almost a year before The Racquet published it. Wilson was unaware of the malicious report until Betzler & Stroozas posted one page of it in their March 17th hit-piece. In a classic example of yellow journalism Betzler & Stroozas mischaracterized it as a “Stalking report filed by Dr. Nicole Prause.” It was not a stalking report as Prause’s never stated that Wilson was in Los Angeles, stalking her. Nor was it a cyberstalking report as the “Suspects Actions” section contained two incidents that were neither stalking nor a crime. A screenshot of the two alleged “crimes”:

What Prause alleges, followed by reality:

“Suspect posted victim name and pic on his website. Suspect refused to remove pictures.”

While screenshots of Prause’s defamatory tweets and her name appear on YBOP, this is not a crime. To the contrary, the pages with screenshots chronicling her ongoing harassment (1, 2, 3, 4, 5) are documenting her misdeeds: libel and cyberstalking. As documented here, Prause has attempted to hide her egregious behavior by filing 3 unjustified, and unsuccessful, DMCA take-downs to have the screenshots of her incriminating tweets removed.

For those who may not know, DMCA stands for Digital Millennium Copyright Act. A DMCA take-down notice is used to have copyrighted materials removed from a website. Prause filed a DMCA take-down as a backdoor way to have this page chronicling her harassment and defamation removed or gutted. Prause is claiming that screenshots of her defamatory tweets are copyrighted material. Tweets are generally not copyrightable, and hers are not.

“Suspect traveled to Germany to victim’s conference. Suspect was not invited.”

Apart form the fact that attending a conference is not a crime, Prause is lying.

It’s true that Wilson traveled to Germany and attended the 5th International Conference on Behavioral Addictions, which ran from April 23-25 (note that Prause filed her police report on April 25th). The untrue part is that Prause had no intentions of attending the ICBA conference in Germany. Prause has never attended or given a presentation at an ICBA conference. Prause doesn’t believe in behavioral addictions. Throughout her entire career Prause has waged a war against the concept of behavioral addiction, especially sex and porn addiction. She’s an “addiction-denier.”

There’s no better example of this than Prause spending the last 4 years obsessively posting in the comments section of ICD-11 beta draft, for Compulsive sexual behaviour disorder section (CSBD) – the World Health Organization’s new diagnosis suitable for diagnosing porn addiction. Prause posted about 40 comments, more than everyone else combined, doing her best to prevent the CSBD diagnosis from making it into the final manual (you can’t read the comments unless you create a username). Her attempt failed, as “Compulsive Sexual Behavior Disorder” is now slated for inclusion in the ICD-11.

There is no way in hell that Prause would attend the ICBA as she would run into several members of the ICD-11 CSBD work-group and multiple other researchers who publish high-quality studies supporting the porn addiction model. In fact, several big name researchers who have formally criticized Prause’s flawed EEG studies and were scheduled to present (i.e. Valerie Voon, Marc Potenza, Matuesz Gola, Matthias Brand, Christian Laier). Put simply, Prause would have been surrounded by many of the people she deplores and attacks on social media and behind the scenes (links to these researcher’s critiques of the two Prause EEG studies: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8). Many of these researchers are keenly aware of Prause’s ongoing unprofessional behavior and behind the scenes machinations.

Then we have the obvious: there is no way for Prause to have known in advance that Gary Wilson was attending the ICBA conference. As noted, Prause filed her police report on April 25th, the last day of the ICBA conference. This means that Prause was told of Wilson’s attendance by another conference attendee (Prause’s former UCLA colleague/roommate also attended).

Moving on, the second part of the Prause police report is equally factually incorrect, yet downright hilarious:

Even though Prause never claimed that Wilson was seen in LA, she describes his “personal oddity” as “wearing sleeping bag” and his weapon of choice as a “long sleave (sic) sweater.” Sounds like a SNL skit. It’s hard not to imagine the police officer biting her lip, trying not to crack-up, as she jots down Prause’s drivel. In any case, Gary Wilson hasn’t been in either Los Angeles or a sleeping bag in years.

In addition to wrongly describing his attire, Prause’s description of Wilson contains multiple inaccuracies: he’s not 65 years old, nor 5’6″, nor 120 pounds.

Did Betzler & Stroozas fact-check a single word in Prause’s bogus police report. Of course not. They had an agenda to fulfill.

The email exchanges between Gary Wilson and Betzler, Stroozas, University of Wisconsin-Lacrosse representatives

Reproduced below are the emails exchanged between Gary Wilson and Betzler & Stroozas or University of Wisconsin representatives. Relevant commentary is provided. Note: Wilson suspected that Betzler & Stroozas were forwarding his emails to David Ley and Nicole Prause. This was confirmed in the very last email and in David Ley’s rage-tweeting about The Racquet article being deleted, before all the parties were notified.

Gary Wilson’s initial email to editor-in-chief Betzler and the University of Wisconsin-Lacrosse counsel, chancellor, and vice-chancellor (Sunday, March 17th):

From: gary wilson
Sent: Sunday, March 17, 2019 3:43 PM
To: Noah Finco; Karley Betzler
Cc: [email protected]; Joe Gow; Bob Hetzel
Subject: Article in The Raquet contains a false police report naming me
Dear Editor,
Re: The Racquet Investigates: Fight the New Drug
I was alarmed to read in the above article that a false police report may have been filed about me with the LAPD. I have never heard anything about such a report, which makes me doubt it was actually filed. Do you have any evidence suggesting that it was? My guess is that Nicole Prause is too clever to waste police resources by filing a false report such as this, as that is a crime.
On the other hand, if indeed Prause did file this report, nothing in it is true. The police evidently did not believe the report was worth investigating (dated 4-22-18). I certainly have heard nothing about it.
Please be aware that Prause has, for years, been harassing me (and many others who raise concerns about the risks of internet porn over-use). She has made multiple false claims of reporting me to the police and the FBI, as well as claiming that she has a “no-contact order” against me. See:
Nicole Prause’s Unethical Harassment and Defamation of Gary Wilson & Others
Nicole Prause’s Unethical Harassment and Defamation of Gary Wilson & Others (page 2)
Distressed by such reports, which I knew about solely via Prause’s ongoing defamatory social media campaign, I called the LAPD a couple of years ago. They explained that they do not supply formal evidence that no reports have been filed, but the woman I spoke with took pity on me and assured me that no report existed. Again, if this latest effort on Prause’s part had indeed been filed, I believe I would have heard from the LAPD by now.
The FBI was more forthcoming when I checked with them. In response to my FOIA request, they assured me that no reports have been filed about me with the FBI. See: FBI affirms Nicole Prause’s fraud surrounding defamatory claims.
As I have never stalked Prause or attended any conference where she was present, there is no way this can be a legitimate report. Kindly remove the report from your publication, so I don’t have to take legal action.
If you would like to do some serious investigative journalism, I would suggest you start with the above links, and also consider this one: Is Nicole Prause Influenced by The Porn Industry?
Please let me know that you have removed the defamatory police report.
Best regards,
Gary Wilson

Co-author Karley Betzler replied on the same day (UWL is on Central Time)

From: Karley Betzler
Sent: Sunday, March 17, 2019 3:24 PM
To: gary wilson
Cc: [email protected]; Joe Gow; Bob Hetzel; Samantha Stroozas
Subject: Re: Article in The Raquet contains a false police report naming me
Good evening,
Thank you for reaching out to us. I have attached the full report we received from Nicole Prause above.
Gary, we will gladly update the article to include a quote from you stating the report is fake.
Thank you for your time,
Karley Betzler
University of Wisconsin-La Crosse
The Racquet – Editor-In-Chief

Gary Wilson replied saying he would soon follow-up with a more extensive response:

From: gary wilson
Sent: Sunday, March 17, 2019 3:51 PM
To: Karley Betzler
Cc: [email protected]; Joe Gow; Bob Hetzel; Samantha Stroozas
Subject: Re: Article in The Raquet contains a false police report naming me
Thanks Karley. The report certainly looks genuine. The issue is that the allegations are false, and were not even investigated by the police. Yet they still appear in your paper. I will send you a more thorough response shortly.
Had you performed an actual investigation you would quickly have found the carefully documented pages I linked to earlier, and this page where Nicole Prause placed my redacted employment documents (Southern Oregon University) on multiple social media outlets and on porn-industry website (falsely claiming that I was fired). See – Libelous Claim that Gary Wilson Was Fired (March, 2018).
Southern Oregon University lawyers were forced to get involved to respond to Prause’s falsehoods. Documentation and the lawyer letters are posted on the above page documenting Prause’s libelous claim that I was fired.
I will email soon with much more.
Best regards
Gary

A few hours later Gary Wilson provided more documentation of Prause’s long history of harassment and defamation, including Prause chronically lying about having filed FBI reports, and copies of Gary Wilson’s FBI report he filed on Prause:

From: gary wilson <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, March 17, 2019 8:40:05 PM
Dear Karley,
It is disturbing that your paper would publish a police report about someone, endorsing its content, without contacting the person named in it for comment, and without doing a more thorough investigation of the person from whom you received such a defamatory item. I would like you to remove the report.
With respect to the allegations in the report (about which I had heard nothing until your paper published it), here are my comments:
I haven’t stalked Dr. Prause or ever considered it. In fact, I haven’t been in LA, or in a sleeping bag, for many years.
It is true that Dr. Prause’s name appears on my website many times, mostly on the two extensive pages carefully documenting her defamation and unending attacks on others and myself. Again, have a look at them so you understand more fully whom you are dealing with when you print content from Dr. Prause.
Nicole Prause’s Unethical Harassment and Defamation of Gary Wilson & Others
Nicole Prause’s Unethical Harassment and Defamation of Gary Wilson & Others (page 2)
The pictures she complains of (and wants removed from my website) are screenshots of her tweets, not photographs of her. They document her ongoing campaign of malicious harassment of people who call attention to the harms associated with overuse of internet pornography, myself included. Screenshots of tweets are not copyrightable images, and are therefore not subject to DMCA take-down demands (which she has repeatedly made to my internet provider unsuccessfully). Her trip to tell the police about it doesn’t surprise me. Nor does it surprise me that they did not follow up on her baseless accusations.
The only conference I attended in Germany is one that Dr. Prause would never have been interested in: the International Conference on Behavioral Addictions. Prause is an avid addiction-denier, who regularly fails to cite any of the research by addiction research experts of the type who attended that conference. I registered and attended as an interested member of the public, not as a gate-crasher as she claims. Nor did I announce my attendance publicly, so how would she even know I attended? I have never attempted to attend any conference where Prause was presenting. Nor would I want to.
For your information, I am the author and co-author of two peer-reviewed papers on the subject of internet pornography, and also the author of a very highly regarded lay book on internet pornography and the emerging science of addiction, so my decision to attend such a conference is hardly surprising. If you would like a copy of my book, I’ll send you one.
Is Internet Pornography Causing Sexual Dysfunctions? A Review with Clinical Reports
ADDICTA. Eliminate Chronic Internet Pornography Use to Reveal Its Effects
Your Brain on Porn: Internet Pornography and the Emerging Science of Addiction
Karley, contrary to your claims your paper’s article was not an investigative piece concerning the current state of the research related to porn’s effects (which can found on this page: The Main Research Page). There’s abundant academic research highlighting the risks of internet porn overuse, and that’s a very interesting story indeed.
Instead your journalists attempted to smear Fight The New Drug – in part by smearing me, then connecting me to FTND. But it makes no sense to smear me without considering the pages upon pages of peer-reviewed research linked to on my 11,000-page website: https://www.yourbrainonporn.com/. I must assume FTND linked to my site because the links to all that research are available there.
I would like you to remove the police report smearing me, and any mention on me. It is baseless and malicious, and part of a long line of such activities engaged in by Dr. Prause and her pro-porn colleagues. Please know that Dr. Prause has been under investigation by the California Board of Psychology for more than 2 years for her harassment of others (while posing as the victim). Your paper appears to be helping her with her defamatory campaign. This is unacceptable.
More on police and FBI reports.
As documented on the two pages, Nicole Prause has been claiming since 2013 that she reported me to the LAPD. In the last few years Prause has tweeted dozens of times that she has also reported me (and others) to the FBI (for what, it was never clear). In the beginning Prause employed dozens of fake usernames to post on porn recovery forums, Quora, Wikipedia, and in the comment sections under articles. Prause rarely used her real name or her own social media accounts. That all changed after UCLA chose not to renew Prause’s contract (around January, 2015).
Freed from any oversight and now self-employed, Prause began tweeting she had reported me to the FBI and LAPD. Just know that I have screenshots of about 500 Prause tweets defaming me. It is Prause who is the cyber-stalker. While I wouldn’t have put it past Prause to file false police and FBI reports, it wasn’t until 2016 that I contacted the LAPD. In a phone conversation I asked if a police report by a Nicole Prause, or on Gary Wilson, was in their database. None were. This is documented in this section: Ongoing – Los Angeles Police Department and UCLA campus police confirm that Prause lied about filing police reports on Gary Wilson
Note: while Prause claimed to have filed a police report all the way back in 2013, she provided you with an April, 2018 LAPD report. Put simply, Prause had been lying for 5 years. While the LAPD will not provide written documentation of police reports, the FBI will. In October, 2018 I filed an FOIA request with the FBI to find out if Prause had ever filed a report naming me. As expected the FOIA revealed that Prause has never filed a FBI report, even though she has tweeted this multiple times and posted this same claim on the FTND Facebook page (see this section May 30, 2018: Prause falsely accuses FTND of science fraud, and implies that she has reported Gary to the FBI twice).
For complete documentation, you can see screenshots of my FOIA request and the FBI’s response confirming Prause as lying here: November, 2018: FBI affirms Nicole Prause’s fraud surrounding defamatory claims. In addition, Prause claimed to have reported Alexander Rhodes of NoFap to the FBI. Given the seriousness of Prause’s allegations against him, Alexander Rhodes submitted a Freedom of Information request to the FBI to inquire about possible reports about himself. Again, Prause was exposed as lying. For extensive documentation on Alex Rhodes’s case see: December, 2018: FBI confirms that Nicole Prause lied about filing a report on Alexander Rhodes.
In talking to FBI agents on the phone I was encouraged to file an official FBI report on Nicole Prause. Which I did. Put simply, while Prause filed a silly police report (its not a crime to screenshot defamatory tweets), I was encouraged by an FBI agent to report Prause to both the FBI and the LAPD. My FBI report, which I have yet to place on the Prause pages, is below in a series of screenshots. The last screenshot is my signature confirming that I am aware that lying to the FBI is serious crime:
———-
———-
————–
——————
———————
Again, I request removal of the spurious Prause “police report,” and any mention of me. Otherwise, I will seek legal counsel in this matter.
Sincerely,
Gary Wilson

Author of the first FTND hit-piece, and managing editor, Samantha Stroozas immediately replied and retaliated by placing all 3 pages of Prause’s malicious LAPD police report into the published article:

From: Samantha Stroozas <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, March 17, 2019 7:01 PM
To: gary wilson; Karley Betzler
Cc: [email protected]; Joe Gow; Bob Hetzel
Dear Gary,
The article is being updated to include the full police report. We understand your claims, but it is not The Racquet’s job to engage in politics between businesses, but more so, to prove further description to publicly accessed information. That is what the police report serves as – a representation of a publicly assessed document that aided in our research. If there is a true problem with this, that is not in regard to politics of institutions that do not involve us, the Office of General Counsel will contact us and we will take care of it. Until then, we appreciate your concerns, but we stand by our piece.
Sam Stroozas
University of Wisconsin – La Crosse
Communication, English & Women Studies
Managing Editor at The Racquet

On Wednesday, March 20th Gary Wilson directly emails the 3 senior counsels for the University of Wisconsin system. The University of Wisconsin-Lacrosse counsel, chancellor, and vice-chancellor are once again copied. Student editors Betzler & Stroozas are omitted from this and all later emails sent by Wilson.

From: gary wilson <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, March 20, 2019 11:23 AM
To: [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]
Cc: [email protected]; Joe Gow; Bob Hetzel
Subject: Baseless, defamatory police report reproduced in “The Racquet”
University of Wisconsin – La Crosse
To Whom It May Concern:
RE: Baseless, defamatory police report reproduced in The Racquet
This email concerns a highly defamatory article that appeared in La Crosse’s school newspaper, The Racquet: https://theracquet.org/5838/showcase/the-racquet-investigates-fight-the-new-drug/. This is another request to remove the groundless and maliciously filed police report about me that appears in it, along with the defamatory and disproven allegations the editors gratuitously included in the article. (The piece is purportedly an expose about a quite different organization that is critical of pornography, Fight the New Drug, or “FTND.”) See email thread below current email.
As explained to The Racquet editors (with much supportive documentation), the person who filed the police report (and who supplied it to the editors in full) is a known harasser who is under investigation by the State of California for similar attacks against myself and many others: Nicole Prause, a former UCLA researcher whose suspect coziness with the porn industry has been documented. For at least 6 years she has been claiming to have filed police and FBI reports against me. When (in 2017) I finally confirmed with the LAPD that she had not, in fact, done so, and made that fact public, she filed this report.
I first learned of this police report, which says it was filed almost a year ago, a few days ago, when I saw it being tweeted twice in one day by Dr. Prause (as well as her colleague Dr. Ley) with a link to The Racquet. This was extremely distressing. Apparently, the police correctly identified the report as unwarranted last year, as their investigation had not extended to even informing me of its existence. A quick examination of what the report contains reveals that it doesn’t actually allege any illegal behavior, but appears to have been submitted solely with the malicious intention of furthering Prause’s ongoing campaign of defamation (and “no platforming”).
The Racquet editors, however, imply in their very biased article that this defamatory report is legitimate – despite the extensive documentation calling into question Prause’s motives and willingness to exploit bureaucracies for her own ends. For example, Prause has made claims for years that she has (also) filed FBI reports about me. Via a FOIA request, I recently verified that she has not dared misuse FBI resources in this way, as filing fraudulent FBI reports could result in criminal repercussions. In light of The Racquet piece, I have now written the LAPD to find out what remedies they offer for malicious misuse of their resources.
The editors of The Racquet did not seek my comment before publishing the defamatory police report, which they falsely characterized as accusing me of “stalking and threatening” Prause. They have apparently made no effort to confirm with the LAPD that this report is in any way merited. They have also refused to remove the image of the report and refused to include my corrective input in their article, implying instead that I believe the police report is fake, as opposed to baseless and malicious.
They ignored the years of evidence that Dr. Prause consistently works in the best interest of the porn industry and has repeatedly defamed (and endeavored to “no platform”) various people and organizations who raise questions about the effects of internet pornography use. In fact, the editors’ response to my concerns was to put up all three pages of the report(!), in place of the screenshot of the first page that was originally published.
In short, given their evident pro-porn stance and previous communications with me on Twitter.com where I commented upon their first article, The Racquet editors appear to be acting with malice and recklessness and without attention to basic journalistic standards. I am conferring with legal counsel and intend to pursue all available remedies to address this defamation. I sincerely hope this will be unnecessary, but if the report, and all mentions of me, are not promptly removed from the article, I will have little choice.
Incidentally, this is not the first time Prause has made it necessary for me to waste the time of a university’s administrators and general counsel. See – Libelous Claim that Gary Wilson Was Fired from Southern Oregon University (March, 2018).
Details
On February 7^th The Racquet editor Samantha Stroozas published a supposed investigatory piece attacking FTND. It was devoid of peer-reviewed references to support its few substantive assertions, and like the current piece, most of the article consisted of ad hominem attacks. On Twitter, I politely responded to Stroozas’s February 7th article with several tweets containing substantial research that corrected her article’s research-related claims. My tweets: https://twitter.com/YourBrainOnPorn/status/1093585735381176320. Stroozas and her coauthor blocked me, refusing to address the content of my tweets or the numerous studies I cited. This was their prerogative, although responsible journalistic ethics might have suggested another course of action, such as correcting or addending the article to factually represent the current state of research, the preponderance of which supports the existence of porn-related problems, as well as the addiction model.
On March 17^th, Stroozas and Betzler published their second hit piece on FTND. I am not employed by FTND. I run an independent website (About Us page) with more than 11,000 pages, most of them abstracts and links related to peer-reviewed research on behavioral addiction, and self-reports taken from those who experiment with giving up internet porn. In the interest of furthering the scientific debate, I critique some of the sketchier research about porn, as well as unsubstantiated claims made by pro-porn advocates/researchers. I am also the author or co-author of two peer-reviewed papers, and the author of a popular, highly regarded book on pornography’s effects.
For reasons that are entirely unclear, The Racquet editors “enhanced” their second smear of FTND by including defamatory remarks about me and reproducing Prause’s baseless police report. I can think of no reason to include me in an article about FTND, other than malicious retaliation for my unwanted tweets in February, 2018.
As explained, when I saw the piece with the groundless report, Stroozas and Betzler were informed of Prause’s long and carefully documented history of defaming and harassing me and others (most of it available here and here), including:
documentation of Prause’s false claims about FBI reports (and years of baseless claims about non-existent police records),
my own FBI report on Prause’s defamatory use of bogus “claims to have filed with the FBI,”
information about a California Board of Psychology investigation into Prause’s harassment (in progress), and
documentation of multiple Prause attacks on others and myself (essentially targeting anyone who dares to inform the public about the risks of internet porn overuse to some users).
Further information
Stroozas made false statements in her email response to me, incorrectly claiming that Prause’s spurious police report is “publicly accessed information”:
“The article is being updated to include the full police report. We understand your claims, but it is not The Racquet’s job to engage in politics between businesses, but more so, to prove further description to publicly accessed information. That is what the police report serves as – a representation of a publicly assessed document that aided in our research”.
The LPAD police report is not public. In fact, it cannot be retrieved by any member of the public other than the person who filed it. It was supplied to the editors by Prause.
The Racquet editors did not contact me to confirm or deny Prause’s assertions. If they had actually performed an investigation (as claimed), or even bothered to Google-search ‘Gary Wilson and Nicole Prause’, the top returns would have been the three extensive pages documenting Prause’s harassment of me and many others (1, 2, 3).
Why didn’t the editors interview independent researchers or mental health professionals doing work with porn addiction and problematic porn use? Why did they only talk to porn-addiction deniers who are not academics and not affiliated with any university? Why did these editors choose to feature Prause, who appears to have a cozy relationship with porn producers and performers; has asked for and apparently received “assistance” from the lobbying arm of the porn industry, the Free Speech Coalition (including possibly obtaining subjects for some of her research via the FSC); has been photographed attending porn industry awards shows (including an exclusive industry-member-only event), and much more.
Why didn’t Stroozas and Betzler discover in their so-called investigation that Prause’s most infamous papers and controversial studies have been critiqued by experts in the peer-reviewed literature no less than 16 times?
Steele et al., 2013 – paper 1, paper 2, paper 3, paper 4, paper 5, paper 6, paper 7, paper 8
Prause et al., 2015 – paper 1, paper 2, paper 3, paper 4, paper 5, paper 6, paper 7, paper 8, paper 9
Prause & Pfaus, 2015. Letter to the editor by Richard A. Isenberg MD (2015)It appears that Prause also furnished the editors with her friends/allies to be featured in the The Racquet article. Specifically, Nicole Prause, David Ley, and Daniel Burgess often work together to defame porn skeptics in social media attacks. I have documentation of all three working together to post defamatory comments about me and FTND, among others.
Why were the editors contacted to write these pieces in the first place? Have they considered why Prause’s tiny company is heavily staffed with press experts, and why so much of her focus appears to be on generating positive press about pornography? Have they asked Prause why she is attempting to trademark my site’s URL and the name of my book, almost 9 years after I started using the name? Have they asked Prause why she has falsely accused almost every major porn skeptic of very serious offenses and crimes?
If the editors were eager to investigate FTND and its purported ties to the Mormons, were they equally eager to ask Prause about her potential ties to the porn industry? If the editors are concerned about free speech, have they asked Prause why she repeatedly attempts fraudulent use of the DMCA law to censor the screenshots of evidence about her tweets from the pages where they appear? Finally, why am I gratuitously included in an article that’s supposed to be about FTND?
On a more personal note, given this article remains published virtually as-is, I am disappointed that your university appears to sanction its journalism students not actually conducting investigative journalism, but merely acting as a platform for allies of the pornography industry to publish defamation. I would hope that given this extensive documentation, the editors will be appropriately reprimanded for not following basic journalistic principles, and trying instead to push a particular view while deliberately publishing defamation, opting not to make corrections when presented with documentation, and excluding the preponderance of research which supports the existence of porn-related problems, possibly with the motivation of retaliating because I factually criticized their earlier article about pornography.
I would like a response to this letter within a week. In the meantime, I will continue the initial steps of acquiring legal counsel to represent me in this matter.
Thank you for your anticipated prompt attention.
Best regards,
Gary Wilson

Faculty advisor Lei Zhang replies on the same day, informing Wilson that that story had been removed. In reality, Prause’s baseless police report and any mention of Wilson was removed, but the rest of the article remained. Notice Lei Zhang stating that she hopes we “can move on to more important matters” – implying that destroying a person’s reputation is of little significance.

From: Lei Zhang <>
Sent: Wednesday, March 20, 2019 3:35 PM
To: [email protected]
Cc: Vitaliano Figueroa; Samantha Stroozas; Karley Betzler; Betsy Morgan
Subject: The story published on the Racquet
Dear Gary,
I am the faculty advisor for the student newspaper, The Racquet. I heard about your complaint during the spring break. I have advised the editors to remove the story from the website.
My sincere apologies. I hope we can put this behind us and move on to more important matters.
Best,
Lei

Wilson replies the following day, Thursday, March 21st:

From: gary wilson <>
Date: Thursday, March 21, 2019 at 2:58 PM
To: Lei Zhang <>
Subject: Re: The story published on the Racquet
Dear Lei,
I appreciate your kind apology.
Are you aware that the story has not been removed as you apparently believed when you wrote me? It is still quite misleading, although it no longer defames me personally.
Incidentally, I suspect that most people would consider the publication of a baseless, malicious police report a highly “important matter.”
Best regards,
Gary Wilson

Faculty advisor Lei Zhang replies on the next day, Friday, March 22nd:

From: Lei Zhang <>
Sent: Friday, March 22, 2019 10:06 AM
To: gary wilson
Cc: Vitaliano Figueroa; Samantha Stroozas; Karley Betzler
Subject: Re: The story published on the Racquet
Dear Gary,
The student newspaper is an independent organization. The editors decided to publish the story after removing the section about the police report. If the story contains any more false or defamatory information, please let me know. The editors will remove this type of information. The writers spent a lot of time working on the story. I agree with their decision to publish it.
The story was written in the third-person voice. The views expressed in the story belong to the interviewees, for example, the psychology professor at UWL. If you disagree with the views expressed in the story, you are welcome to contribute an opinion piece. The Racquet welcomes diverse views.
At our next advisory meeting, I will discuss with the editors how to produce a more balanced story and double check information for accuracy.
Have a good weekend,
Lei Zhang, Ph.D.
Assistant Professor

Gary Wilson replies on the same day:

From: gary wilson <>
Sent: Friday, March 22, 2019 3:52 PM
To: Lei Zhang
Cc: Vitaliano Figueroa; [email protected]; Joe Gow; Bob Hetzel; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]
Subject: Re: The story published on the Racquet
Dear Lei,
Thank you for your message.
I would suggest you contact Fight The New Drug about the accuracy of your editors’ claims concerning its organization.
As chronicled in earlier emails, both this article and the February 7^thStroozas article appear to violate The Racquet’s own guidelines as outlined on the letter to the editor page (“The Racquet reserves the right to deny publication if the story does not address all sides of the issues with accuracy and clarity”). Both articles by Stroozas were one-sided and evidently meant to smear their target (and others), while simultaneously ignoring the preponderance the empirical evidence establishing the risks of internet porn overuse.
My complaint to UW is supported by my Twitter exchange with Sroozas where I countered her incorrect statements and unsupported claims with peer-reviewed studies. In response to empirical research, Stroozas blocked me and then retaliated in the March 17^th, 2019 article by reproducing a malicious police report and Dr. Prause’s falsehoods in an article that had nothing to do with me.
When Stroozas and Betzler were informed on March 17^th of Dr Prause’s long, documented history of harassing and libeling me, and the falseness of Prause’s police report, Stroozas retaliated a second time, spitefully publishing all 3 pages of the report. Despite CC’s to university officials on all emails, the defamatory police report remained online for 4 days.
The internet is forever, and the police report and associated text were likely captured for later defamatory use by some of the unethical people your editors continue to validate in their (still) published hit pieces.
My legal advisors assure me that the University of Wisconsin’s students’ actions have already defamed me irreparably. I’ll have to give further thought to next steps.
Best regards,
Gary Wilson

On Wednesday, March 27th student editor emails the following short note announcing the removal of the entire article. In a break from protocol Karley Beltzer cc’s Gary Wilson’s harassers, David Ley, Nicole Prause and Daniel Burgess (along with several lawyers and university officials):

Karley Betzler <>
Wed 3/27/2019 2:34 PM
Good afternoon,
I hope you’re all having a good day. Sam Stroozas and I have made the decision to remove our article from The Racquet’s website. This was not an ideal situation for us, but we felt as if we had no other choice due to lack of support.
We stand by our commitment to providing a necessary conversation to the UWL public and beyond. The Racquet has forever been changed for the better by this experience.
Best,
Karley Betzler & Sam Stroozas
University of Wisconsin-La Crosse
The Racquet – Editor-In-Chief and Managing Editor

Addendum: Evidence that Betzler and Stroozas had been forwarding Gary Wilson’s emails to Nicole Prause and David Ley. First, Dr. Ley quickly retorted with the sole response, ranting about Wilson:

David Ley <>
Wed 3/27/2019 3:44 PM
indeed. I warned you that wilson regularly intimidates journalists through threats and bully tactics.
He should run for president

As neither Prause nor Ley were included in any of the earlier emails, Ley’s retort indicates that they were kept apprised of Wilson’s correspondence (or bullying as Ley calls it) with The Racquet and its ultimate decision to cease its targeted defamation. More telling is that the following unhinged tweet was posted 3 hours before the final Karley Betzler email to everyone:

It’s important to keep in mind that Prause and Ley often work together on social media, attacking and defaming anyone they disagree with. For example Ley has tweeted several times the lie that Wilson was fired from Southern Oregon University. This is libel and cyberstalking, and Ley’s involvement is documented on this page: Libelous Claim that Gary Wilson Was Fired (March, 2018).

Update – This section is now part of two defamation lawsuits, and is described in these affidavits:

Update (July, 2019): David J Ley is now being paid by the porn industry to promote their websites, while he fervently denies the harms of porn. See – David J. Ley is now collaborating with porn industry giant xHamster to promote its websites and convince users that porn addiction and sex addiction are myths.

Others – March 17, 2019: Prause employs multiple sock-puppets to edit the Fight The New Drug Wikipedia page, as Prause simultaneously tweets content from her sock-puppets’ edits

On the same day that the University of Wisconsin-Lacrosse student newspaper published its Fight The New Drug hit-piece, a Nicole Prause sock-puppet edited FTND’s Wikipedia page. Prause’s new sockpuppet – NewsYouCanUse2018 – produced 31 edits…before she was banned as a sockpuppet of user “NeuroSex.”

The very first edit by Prause (as NewsYouCanUse2018) entailed a link to Prause’s 2016 Salt Lake Tribune Op-ed (which was completely debunked by this op-ed), and added The Racquet’s FTND hit-piece (exposed in previous section), which University of Wisconsin-Lacrosse officials deleted days later.

18:24, 17 March 2019 diff hist +531‎ Fight the New Drug ‎ →‎Criticism: news article

On the same day NewsYouCanUse2018 added The Racquet article to Wikipedia, @NicoleRPrause tweeted about it (she later deleted the tweets):

Another libelous tweet on March 18, 2019:

Many of her sockpuppets’ Wikipedia edits attempted to insert FTND financial information (along with her associated propaganda about it). Prause also attempted to insert personal information about FTND employees.

23:40, 17 March 2019 diff hist +702‎ Fight the New Drug ‎ Add financials from IRS documentation as common method to evaluate charity status
19:53, 17 March 2019 diff hist +405‎ Talk:Fight the New Drug ‎ →‎Criticism for new news coverage and IRS information
19:25, 17 March 2019 diff hist +553‎ Talk:Fight the New Drug ‎ Criticism is being blocked despite reliable sources
19:12, 17 March 2019 diff hist +320‎ Fight the New Drug ‎ Added IRS citations for salary information of executives
19:06, 17 March 2019 diff hist +820‎ Fight the New Drug ‎ Undid revision 888222240 by Praxidicae (talk) The source is a newspaper of investigative journalists,the executive director’s own linkedin claims, and IRS forms 990. All verifiable. Tag: Undo
18:30, 17 March 2019 diff hist +289‎ Fight the New Drug ‎ add executive director summary

One of the Prause tweets containing the same material as the above Wikipedia edits:

The following sockpuppet, who made only 3 edits on March 15^th, appears to be Prause: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/204.2.36.41. We suggest this because the 3 edits were identical to the edits by NewsYouCanUse2018, and only Prause tries to insert info about FTND financials (which no other editor does):

Prause seems to “own” Wikipedia, having employed over 30 aliases to post her lies and propaganda, despite the fact that aliases are strictly forbidden on Wikipedia (PDF of Nicole Prause aliases she used to harass & defame). Even though Wikipedia finally took some disciplinary action (below), much of her propaganda remains on Wikipedia. See these sections for documentation of many of Prause’s other Wikipedia sock-puppets:

Below are several more “NeuroSex” (Prause) sockpuppets, indentified and banned from Wikipedia, including aliases who edited the FTND page and inserted links to the “RealYourBrainOnPorn” website (and thus engaged in unlawful trademark infringement of YourBrainOnPorn.com). This is Wikipedia’s notice of illicit activity:

Clerk endorsed – Please confirm & check for sleepers. The behavioral evidence (fixation on Fight the New Drug) indicates they’re puppets of the stale NeuroSex20:11, 4 May 2019:
Group 1 – the following accounts are Confirmed to each other and Unrelated to NeuroSex:
- Vjardin2 (talk⁺·tag·contribs·logs·filter log·block log·CA)
- Wikibhw (talk⁺·tag·contribs·logs·filter log·block log·CA)
- Baseballreader899 (talk⁺·tag·contribs·logs·filter log·block log·CA)
Group 2 – the following accounts are Confirmed to each other and a technical match to Group 1 but I see no behavioral connection:
- Magicunicornlyfe (talk⁺·tag·contribs·logs·filter log·block log·CA)
- Sciencemaggie3 (talk⁺·tag·contribs·logs·filter log·block log·CA)
Group 3 – the following accounts are Confirmed to NeuroSex:
- NewsYouCanUse2018
- SecondaryEd2020 (talk⁺·tag·contribs·logs·filter log·block log·CA)
- Sciencearousal (talk⁺·tag·contribs·logs·filter log·block log·CA)

Note: On April 25th, the Sciencearousal username (Prause) appeared on Wikipedia, inserting links and deleting legitimate material about pornography’s effects. (On April 17 one of Sciencearousal’s aliases tried to do the same: SecondaryEd2020). Leaving little doubt about the real identity of Sciencearousal, a Reddit “Sciencearousal” account simultaneously appeared, promoting “RealYourBrainOnPorn.com” while disparaging Gary Wilson & the legitimate “Your Brain On Porn.”

How many sock puppets remain? Knowing the truth, why doesn’t Wikipedia reverse all of her biased handiwork on its platform and replace the editors who acquiesced to her edits in the first place?

The 50+ suspected Prause sockpuppet aliases are listed below (but there’s no reason to think this list is complete).

Others – April, 2019: Prause harasses and threatens therapist D.J. Burr, then maliciously reports him to the State of Washington Department of Health

Prause initiates her defamation by accusing anyone who treats porn addiction of also being a “reparative therapist” (practice of trying to change an individual’s sexual orientation from homosexual or bisexual to heterosexual).

In her assault, Prause publishes two lies in one tweet:

The lies: 1) No Nikky, treating porn addiction is not analogous to conversion therapy. 2) Wrong, The world’s most widely used medical diagnostic manual, The International Classification of Diseases (ICD-11), contains a new diagnosis suitable for porn addiction: “Compulsive Sexual Behavior Disorder.”

Close Prause friend Joe Kort joins in:

Nikky continues on the Joe Kort thread responding to licensed therapist D.J. Burr with false allegations and threats. Prause asserts that Burr is engaged in malpractice (for treating porn addiction), and that his patients should be report him to state boards. Prause says she would “support” his patients in their reports.

Prause blocks D.J. Burr and adds this bizarre tweet to the thread. It’s 3 random pictures snatched from internet. The screenshots fail to support her continued lies that CSAT’s treating porn addiction are masquerading as reparative therapists.

Prause never links to the page of an actual CSAT or members of SASH or IITAP. She just makes stuff up, as is her M.O.:

A few months later D.J. Burr receives a letter from State of Washington Department of Health informing him that the disciplinary board dismissed a complaint alleging unprofessional conduct. The alleged unprofessional (“using racist language”) occurred April 7, 2019 – the same day as the last of the above tweets.

Prause reporting DJ Burr was no secret as he exposed her malicious reporting in response to Ley’s propaganda piece claiming that he and Prause (not named, but described) were victims of malicious reporting (if they were reported, it was for good reason).

First, David Ley provides zero documentation for claims of victim-hood. Second, Prause does not comment on Burr’s tweet (which is out of character). Ley replies, strategically avoiding the facts presented to him:

Prause has a long history of urging patients to report sex addiction therapists to state boards, and of maliciously reporting anyone she disagrees with to regulatory organizations or boards. These sections document some of Prause’s inappropriate use of regulatory organizations:

The above organizations found no merit in Prause’s fraudulent allegations.

Note – Numerous individuals maliciously reported to universities of governing boards by Prause have filed sworn affidavits in the Don Hilton defamation lawsuit against Prause:

Prause long history of misusing regulatory bodies to harass innocent victims has finally caught up with her. Karma.

April, 2019: Prause, Daniel Burgess and associates engage in unlawful trademark infringement of YourBrainOnPorn.com, by creating “RealYourBrainOnPorn” website & social media accounts

As Your Brain on Porn has been continuously engaged in vigorous debate around the subject of compulsive pornography consumption since before 2011, our website certainly doesn’t take issue with, or fear, opposing views. Sexual health experts are welcome to offer views about internet pornography’s effects that differ from our views.

We thrive on debate as we believe that the facts surrounding the issue, along with the research, support that problems often emerge when people use too much internet pornography. But to this day, not many pro-porn activists have been willing to engage in substantive debate with us, resorting instead to unsavory tactics such as straw-men, lies, personal attacks, harassment, and defamation – and now, trademark infringement, impersonation, and domain-name squatting.

While we encourage these intellectual opponents to share their pro-porn views for us to continue to refute with facts and citations, they are not legally permitted to impersonate us.

Why not revert to ScienceOfArousal.com?

Why did these self-proclaimed experts change their site name to mirror our website’s name, when their first-choice URL was “ScienceOfArousal.com?” Proof: copy & paste that URL into your browser. It will redirect you to “realyourbrainonporn” – https://web.archive.org/web/20190414191620/https://scienceofarousal.com/. Why do they claim that they have been censored by a request to cease their trademark infringement, when they could simply revert to their erstwhile brand name “ScienceOfArousal.com” and continue to operate both freely and legally?

SCREENSHOT FROM APRIL 16, 2019, when SOA first appeared

We have never attempted to censor opposing views and critiques, unlike one of their “experts,” Dr. Prause, who has repeatedly tried to remove evidence of her behavior with groundless DMCA takedown requests. We simply ask that that these vocal spokespersons hold forth from their original pulpit, the URL and brand name “Science of Arousal” (ScienceOfArousal.com). And that they relinquish the subsequent name they employed along with the corresponding trademark application (for a name that YBOP has operated under for almost 10 years ). Why do they engage in these apparent attempts to suppress traffic to our website and confuse the public?

Trademark infringement and targeted harassment: Details

The URL for this website (YourBrainOnPorn.com) was registered in 2010, has some 20,000 unique visitors a day, more than 11,000 pages of content, and has long functioned as a well-known clearinghouse for information related to internet porn’s effects. For almost a decade it has been linked to by thousands of other websites, and mentioned in numerous news articles or podcasts, as well as being cited in several peer-review studies. The host of the site is also the author of a highly regarded book entitled Your Brain OnPorn, first published in 2014.

In April, 2019, a blatant trademark infringement campaign was launched targeting YourBrainOnPorn.com. A new website with the URL realyourbrainonporn.com appeared, just a few days after the website ScienceOfArousal.com (see above) had appeared. As explained above, the later URL, featuring much the same cast of self-proclaimed “experts,” replaced the earlier ScienceOfArousal.com. Use of the URL for the latter redirected its visitors to the second (infringing) site’s URL.

The imposter site attempts to trick the visitor, with the center of each page declaring “Welcome to the REAL Your Brain On Porn,” as the tab falsely proclaims “Your Brain On Porn.”

When the link for the imposter site is emailed it appears as “Your Brain on Porn”:

When a RealYourBrainOnPorn (@BrainOnPorn) tweet is retweeted it appears as “Your Brain on Porn” and “YBOP (our most frequently used nickname)”:

The URL for the counterfeit site was registered on March 13th, 2019:

Update (July, 2019): Legal actions revealed that Daniel Burgess is the current owner of the realyourbrainonporn.com URL. In March of 2018, Daniel Burgess appeared out of nowhere, engaging in targeted harassment and defamation of Gary Wilson and YBOP on multiple social platforms. Some of Burgess’s libelous claims and disturbed rantings are documented and debunked here: Addressing Unsupported Claims and Personal Attacks by Daniel Burgess (March, 2018) (Unsurprisingly Burgess is a close ally of Nicole Prause). For more on Burgess/Prause using @BrainOnPorn twitter account to harass & defame, while promoting the porn-industry agenda.

Although the Whois Record withholds the identity of the registrant, those apparently responsible for this unlawful trademark infringement can presumably be found among the site’s so-called “Experts”: https://www.realyourbrainonporn.com/experts.

This collection of porn-science deniers and their friends is well known to YBOP and other porn skeptics, as some of these deniers’ outlier studies and inadequately unsupported talking points are regularly featured in the mainstream media. These deniers frequently mislead journalists and academic journal editors about the true state of internet porn research. On social media and in lay articles they promote their cherry-picked, outlier papers, and/or misrepresent the true implications of their data. Visit this page to see critiques of some of their most dubious progeny.

The two most vocal and best known deniers, Nicole Prause and David Ley, have engaged in overt and covert defamation, harassment and cyberstalking, targeting groups and individuals who believe, based on the objective evidence, that today’s porn might be causing significant problems for some users. (Hundreds of harassment incidents are documented on these extensive pages page 1, page 2.) The current trademark infringement campaign is merely the latest crusade.

To promote their new site, while maliciously disparaging Gary Wilson and the legitimate YourBrainOnPorn, the creators of the imposter site created a Twitter account (https://twitter.com/BrainOnPorn), YouTube channel, Facebook page, and published a press release. In a further attempt to confuse the public, the press release falsely claims to originate from Gary Wilson’s home town – Ashland, Oregon. (None of the imposter site’s “experts” live in Oregon, let alone Ashland.)

Judge for yourself whether the imposter site and its “experts” further the interests of the porn industry or the authentic search for scientific truth by perusing this collection of RealYBOP tweets. Written in Dr. Nicole Prause’s distinctive, misleading style, the tweets extol the benefits of porn, misrepresent the current state of the research, and troll individuals and organizations Prause has previously harassed.

In addition, the creators of the imposter site registered a reddit account (user/sciencearousal) to spam porn recovery forums reddit/pornfree and reddit/NoFap with promotional drivel, claiming porn use is harmless and disparaging YourBrainOnPorn.com and Gary Wilson (see their reddit comments below). These comments, in Prause’s easy-to-recognize style, promote her studies, attack the concept of porn addiction, disparage Wilson and YBOP, belittle men in recovery, and defame porn skeptics. It’s important to note that Prause has a long, documented history of employing numerous aliases to post on porn recovery forums.

On April 25th, the Sciencearousal username appeared on Wikipedia, inserting links and deleting legitimate material about pornography’s effects. (On April 17 one of Sciencearousal’s aliases tried to do the same: SecondaryEd2020). See the scienceofarousal Wikipedia edits below. This campaign of misinformation is business-as-usual, as these 2 pages have documented over 20 apparent, illicit sock-puppets of Prause (one of the new site’s “experts”), which she has created to insert her propaganda and defame individuals and organizations: page 1, page 2. (Wikipedia’s rules prohibit sock-puppets.)

The legitimate YBOP, this website, stands by its brand, services and resources and is taking steps to address the infringing and unfair activities of the “Real Your Brain On Porn” site.

Update (January, 2020): Alex Rhodes filed an amended complaint against Prause which also names the RealYBOP twitter account (@BrainOnPorn) as engaging in defamation. For the story, and all the courts documents, see this page: NoFap founder Alexander Rhodes defamation lawsuit against Nicole Prause. RealYBOP’s lies, harassment, defamation, and cyberstalking have caught up with it. The @BrainOnPorn twitter is now being named in two defamation lawsuits. PDF’s of court documents naming @BrainOnPorn:

Update (January, 2021): Gary Wilson now owns the RealYBOP URL. See press release – ATTENTION: YBOP acquires www.RealYourBrainOnPorn.com in trademark infringement settlement.

April, 2019: On January 29, 2019: Prause filed a trademark application to obtain YourBrainOnPorn & YourBrainOnPorn. Prause is sent a Cease & Desist letter for trademark squatting and trademark infringement (RealYBOP).

The URL for this website (YourBrainOnPorn.com) was registered in 2010, has some 10-20,000 unique visitors a day, more than 12,000 pages of content, and has long functioned as a well-known clearinghouse for information related to internet porn’s effects. For almost a decade it has been linked to by thousands of other websites, and mentioned in numerous news articles or podcasts, as well as being cited in several peer-review studies. The host of the site is also the author of a highly regarded book entitled Your Brain OnPorn, first published in 2014.

On January 29, 2019, Prause filed a trademark application to obtain YOURBRAINONPORN and YOURBRAINONPORN.COM. These marks have been used by the popular website www.YourBrainOnPorn.com and its host Gary Wilson for nearly a decade – facts well known to Prause, who has frequently disparaged the latter website and its host since 2013.

On May 1, 2019 the attorneys for the common-law owner of the trademarks “Your Brain On Born” and “YourBrainOnPorn.com” (this website) sent a cease and desist letter to all of those who appeared to be behind the infringing site (the so-called “Experts”): Marty Klein, Lynn Comella, David J. Ley, Emily F. Rothman, Samuel Perry, Taylor Kohut, William Fisher, Peter Finn, Janniko Georgiadis, Erick Janssen, Aleksandar Štulhofer, Joshua Grubbs, James Cantor, Michael Seto, Justin Lehmiller, Victoria Hartmann, Julia Velten, Roger Libby, Doug Braun-Harvey, David Hersh, Jennifer Valli.

A second letter also demands that Dr. Nicole Prause abandon her trademark-squatting application for the marks “Your Brain On Porn” and “YourBrainOnPorn.com.” PDF of 8-page cease & desist letter to Nicole Prause – May 1, 2019

Screenshots of the first 3 pages of the cease & desist letter:

Communications revealed that Prause’s legal counsel is Wayne B. Giampietro, who was one of the primary lawyers defending backpage.com. Backpage was shut down by the federal government “for its willful facilitation of human trafficking and prostitution.” (see this USA Today article: 93-count indictment on sex trafficking charges revealed against Backpage founders). The indictment charged backpage owners, along with others, of conspiring to knowingly facilitate prostitution offenses through the website. Authorities contend some of the trafficked people included teenage girls. For details on Giampietro’s involvement see – https://dockets.justia.com/docket/illinois/ilndce/1:2017cv05081/341956. In an odd turn of events, backpage.com assets were seized by Arizona, with Wayne B. Giampietro LLC listed as forfeiting $100,000.

On July 31, 2019 the law-firm representing YBOP & Gary Wilson filed an oppostion to Prause’s trademark grab with United States Patent and Trademark Office

UPDATE: Knowing she would lose a federal lawsuit (which was about to go forward), Nicole Prause withdrew her illegal attempt to trademark YOURBRAINONPORN and YOURBRAINONPORN.COM. On October 18, 2019 the United States Patent and Trademark Office entered a judgement against Prause (the applicant):

The legitimate YBOP, this website, stands by its brand, services and resources and is taking legal steps to address the infringing and unfair activities of Nicole R. Prause and Daniel Burgess. Next up, “RealYourBrainOnPorn” and its twitter account. Update (January, 2021): Gary Wilson now owns the RealYBOP URL. See press release – ATTENTION: YBOP acquires www.RealYourBrainOnPorn.com in trademark infringement settlement.

April, 2019: RealYBOP Twitter account (@BrainOnPorn) – In an attempted trademark grab Daniel Burgess, Prause & allies create a twitter account which supports a pro-porn industry agenda.

RealYBOP twitter (@BrainOnPorn) and realyourbrainonporn.com were developed as a tool by Nicole Prause and Daniel Burgess to attack Your Brain on Porn, Gary Wilson, and anyone else who critiques the porn industry or points out the negative effects of porn use.

Due to ongoing legal actions, YBOP was forced to collect what @BrainOnPorn tweets. This page documents the first year of RealYBOP tweets, and contains an extensive introduction providing context and events that have transpired, such as legal actions, RealYBOP Twitter being implicated in defamation lawsuits, and RealYBOP experts being paid by the porn industry: RealYourBrainOnPorn (@BrainOnPorn) tweets: Daniel Burgess, Nicole Prause & pro-porn allies collaborate on a biased website and social media accounts to support the porn industry agenda (beginning in April, 2019).

A second page documents @BrainOnPorn’s 2nd year of pro-porn industry tweets (beginning April 17, 2020): RealYourBrainOnPorn (@BrainOnPorn) tweets, page 2: Daniel Burgess, Nicole Prause & pro-porn allies collaborate on a twitter account to support the porn industry and to harass & defame anyone who speaks about porn’s negative effects.

A third page documents the unbelievable story of Prause, Burgess and David Ley magically “discovering” fake porn URLS inserted into the Wayback Machine archive of YBOP. These pages never existed on YBOP (as we prove). Anyone can manually insert URLs into the archives for any website on the net: Realyourbrainonporn (Daniel Burgess, Nicole Prause) defamation/harassment of Gary Wilson: They “discover” fake porn URLs in the Internet Wayback Archive (August, 2019)

While Daniel Burgess was the last known owner of the RealYBOP URL (www.RealYourBrainOnPorn.com), the most credible evidence points towards Nicole Prause creating and operating the RealYBOP website and Twitter account. @BrainOnPorn’s 18-month reign of terror ended with Twitter permanently banning it for targeted harassment and posting its victims personal information.

RealYBOP constantly engaged in harassment and defamation of those who speak about porn’s negative effects (maybe 1,500 such tweets in its 18 months of existence). We wonder who’s legally responsible for @BrainOnPorn‘s defamation and harassment? Is it only Nicole Prause, or only Daniel Burgess, or maybe both? Or could all of the RealYBOP “experts” be held legally and financially responsible?

This question is not trivial as Prause and the RealYBOP Twitter are now implicated in two defamation lawsuits (Donald Hilton, MD & Nofap founder Alexander Rhodes), a trademark infringement case, and a trademark squatting case. In fact, several of the RealYBOP tweets have been included in filings for the two defamation lawsuits, and in associated affidavits filed by other victims of Prause and RealYBOP Twitter (affidavit #1, affidavit #2, affidavit #3, affidavit #4, affidavit #5, affidavit #6, affidavit #7, affidavit #8, affidavit #9, affidavit #10, affidavit #11, affidavit #12, affidavit #13, affidavit #14, affidavit #15, affidavit #16).

We start with the very first tweet by Real YBOP. Notice that about half of the retweets were by accounts associated with the porn industry. Note: As the RealYBOP account had no followers at that point, it means these accounts were likely notified via email. In fact, PornHub was the first account to retweet this, indicating a coordinated effort between PornHub and the RealYBOP account!

PornHub was the first account to retweet the above.

Evidence that RealYBOP Twitter and website are in cahoots with the porn industry?

While nearly every “RealYBOP” tweet supports the porn industry agenda, the tweets on this page leave no doubt concerning RealYBOP’s true allegiance – directly supporting the porn industry – especially PornHub (Mindgeek) – RealYourBrainOnPorn (@BrainOnPorn) tweets DIRECTLY supporting the porn industry, especially Pornhub

Prause denies involvement in these trademark-infringing social media accounts. However, simple observation, RealYBOP experts’ correspondence, WIPO’s report, and considerable evidence point to her management of these accounts

While Daniel A. Burgess registered www.RealYourBrainOnPorn.com, Prause’s numerous victims believe she orchestrated the content on RealYBOP and operated its social media accounts (especially the very active Twitter account which, before it was banned for harassment, obsessively harassed and defamed those who suggested porn might cause harms or that the porn industry has problems).

RealYBOP went live April 16, 2019, yet it wasn’t until Wilson’s attorneys filed a complaint with the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) that we learned that Daniel A. Burgess owned the URL (July 8, 2019). Incidentally, Wilson’s attorneys requested the WIPO administrative review of the apparent misuse of his trademark in the RealYBOP URL as a possible route to having www.realyourbrainonporn.com transferred to Wilson as swiftly and economically as possible. Surprisingly, WIPO declined to rectify the situation, so Wilson had wait until his trademark registrations were official before at last gaining control of the infringing URL.

In the meantime, Prause “weaponized” the WIPO decision. She issued a misleading press release and constantly mischaracterized WIPO’s decision on Twitter. She portrayed Wilson as trying unsuccessfully to steal “their website” (The irony!) This propaganda campaign became part of her mythology that he, and others, wanted to silence “them” because we were afraid of “their science.” For his attempt to defend his trademarks from blatant infringement Prause smeared Wilson as “vicious to scientists.” Finally, Prause repeatedly referred to the administrative WIPO proceeding as a “lawsuit.” It was not a lawsuit. In fact, it was an attempt to make further legal proceedings unnecessary.

The RealYBOP “experts” said Prause ran the website

As initially no one knew Burgess was the official owner of the RealYBOP URL, Wilson’s attorneys were obliged to send cease and desist letters to all the “experts” listed on his infringing website (May 1, 2019). A handful of the “experts” replied, and a few named Prause as the operator of RealYBOP. Here, for example, is RealYBOP erstwhile “expert” Alan McKee replying our C&D letter:

Here’s former Indiana University colleague and co-author Peter Finn replying to our attorney’s C&D letter:

In fact, not one of the RealYBOP experts stated, or seemed to have any clue, that Daniel Burgess was involved when they responded to the cease & desist letters they received. Clearly, her “experts” thought they were dealing solely with Prause. (Prause’s merry band of RealYBOP “experts”: Marty Klein, Lynn Comella, David J. Ley, Emily F. Rothman, Samuel Perry, Taylor Kohut, William Fisher, Peter Finn, Janniko Georgiadis, Erick Janssen, Aleksandar Štulhofer, Joshua Grubbs, James Cantor, Michael Seto, Justin Lehmiller, Anna Randall, Victoria Hartmann, Julia Velten, Michael Vigorito, Doug Braun-Harvey, David Hersh, Jennifer Valli and Nicole Prause herself.)

The World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) found substantial evidence of Prause’s involvement with RealYBOP

The WIPO decision caused an unexpected delay in the transfer of the URL to Wilson (until the trademarks were formally registered in his name). The important point here is that the WIPO panelist also viewed Prause as a leading controller of the site: “Panel finds substantial evidence that Mr. Burgess, Dr. Prause, and Liberos LLC share involvement in the control of the website.” Excerpt from the WIPO opinion:

The Amended Complaint also names Dr. Nicole Prause and Liberos LLC [her company] as Respondents. They do not appear in the Registrar’s WhoIs database in relation to the Domain Name, but there are reasons to believe that Dr. Prause is a leading person in the “group of psychologists and scientists” that is responsible for the Respondent’s website, according to the Response. She is the second-listed expert on the site, with her affiliation shown as “Liberos”. Two of the experts who replied to the Complainant’s demand letter said they participated at her invitation. The law firm that responded on her behalf to the Complainant’s demand letter is the same law firm that represents the Respondent in this proceeding. Dr. Prause “DBA Liberos LLC” applied for United States trademark registration of YOUR BRAIN ON PORN. The online database of the California Secretary of State shows that Liberos LLC is a California limited liability company, for which Nicole Prause is the registered agent.
The Panel finds substantial evidence that Mr. Burgess, Dr. Prause, and Liberos LLC share involvement in the control of the website associated with the Domain Name, as well as common interests in this proceeding, and there has been no showing of material prejudice to them in the event that the proceeding continues with Dr. Prause and Liberos LLC as named Respondents. See WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Third Edition (“WIPO Overview 3.0”), section 4.11.2.
Accordingly, the Panel allows the Complaint against multiple respondents as styled in the caption above and refers to these parties collectively hereafter as the “Respondent.”

As the arbitrator noted, both Prause and Daniel Burgess were indeed represented by Prause’s lawyer Wayne B. Giampietro of Poltrock & Giampietro. If Prause had no involvement in RealYBOP, why did her attorneys (who continued to represent her in connection with her infringement on Wilson’s trademarks) also represent Daniel Burgess?

Update (January, 2021): Gary Wilson now owns the RealYBOP URL. See press release – ATTENTION: YBOP acquires www.RealYourBrainOnPorn.com in trademark infringement settlement.

The RealYourBrainOnPorn Facebook page listed Prause’s phone number as the contact

Before the RealYBOP Facebook page vanished, Nicole Prause’s phone number was listed as the contact number. We have blacked out her phone number below to protect her privacy, but Prause has listed this same number on various other pages she controls online, including Twitter. (Unredacted copies can be provided to journalists.) In addition, the Facebook page below describes the owner as a “scientist” (singular) rather than “scientists.” The latter would be expected if RealYBOP were a true group effort, as Prause (as its manager) has claimed.

“RealYourBrainOnPorn” YouTube channel initially identified itself as Nicole Prause (thereby also identifying Prause as sockpuppet TruthShallSetSetYouFree)

Upset by a less than flattering Rebecca Watson video covering the Rhodes defamation lawsuit, Prause used her own account and the RealYBOP YouTube account to argue with commenters under the Watson video. The RealYBOP comment reads as if it was written by Prause, in the first person (“my license”, “I won”), when describing her so-called victories in the WIPO hearing, UCLA complaints, and complaints against her psychology license. The RealYBOP comment also links to 2 court documents Prause forced Reason.com to add to this article about Hilton v. Prause. (The court ignored Prause lie-filled documents and refused to dismiss the case.)

Prause claims of victimhood are pure fabrications. She is the perpetrator, not the victim.

Soon after her onslaught against Watson on YouTube and Twitter, the RealYBOP YouTube channel changed its name to “TruthShallSetYouFree,” which resulted in the above comment changing usernames:

Prause still uses her amended YouTube alias (TruthShallSetYouFree) to disparage and defame her usual targets, while spreading claims of her victimhood.

As stated above, 3 main pages document most, but not all, of RealYBOP’s Tweets supporting the porn industry:

Update – January, 2020: Alex Rhodes filed an amended complaint against Prause which also names the RealYBOP twitter account (@BrainOnPorn) as engaging in defamation. For the story, and all the courts documents, see this page: NoFap founder Alexander Rhodes defamation lawsuit against Nicole Prause. RealYBOP’s lies, harassment, defamation, and cyberstalking have caught up with it. The @BrainOnPorn twitter is now being named in two defamation lawsuits. PDF’s of court documents naming @BrainOnPorn:

Update (January, 2021): Gary Wilson now owns the RealYBOP URL. See press release – ATTENTION: YBOP acquires www.RealYourBrainOnPorn.com in trademark infringement settlement.

April, 2019: Daniel Burgess? Nicole Prause? As “Sciencearousal” – Reddit account promotes “RealYourBrainOnPorn.com” while disparaging Gary Wilson & the legitimate “Your Brain On Porn”

user/sciencearousaltrolled and spammed reddit porn recovery forums, usually posting wherever Gary Wilson’s name or “Your Brain On Porn” appeared. Until otherwise informed, we must assume that user/sciencearousal speaks (defames?) for all the “experts” listed on their collective website: https://www.realyourbrainonporn.com/experts.

Sciencearousal’s first post boldly references to the imposter site “Your Brain On Porn”:

———————-

More trolling/spamming:

———————-

Trolling a 2-month old post about Gary Wilson, disparaging him:

The above comments mirror those made by both Nicole Prause (and her many aliases) and David Ley. The defamatory and malicious comments began appearing in July, 2013, a few days after Wilson published a critique of Prause ‘s first EEG study. The comments are very similar in content and tone. In the beginning Prause employed dozens of fake usernames to post on porn recovery forums, Quora, Wikipedia, and in the comment sections under articles. Prause rarely used her real name or her own social media accounts.

That all changed after UCLA chose not to renew Prause’s contract (around January, 2015). Freed from any oversight and now self-employed, Prause began to put her name to falsehoods, openly cyber-harassing multiple individuals and organizations on social media and elsewhere. As Prause’s primary target was Wilson (hundreds of social media comments along with behind-the-scenes email campaigns), it became necessary to monitor and document Prause’s tweets and posts. This was done for her victims’ protection, and crucial for any future legal actions. These 3 pages document hundreds of incidents of harassment and documented defamation:

———————-

Once again, comments mirror those made by Prause (and her many aliases), disparaging Wilson. In addition, Sciencearousal misrepresents the state of the research, promotes the porn industry’s agenda, and informs a r/pornfree member that porn use is positive for 99% of the population:

———————-

Sciencearousal trolls another thread mentioning “Your Brain On Porn”:

——————-

Sciencearousal trolls another thread mentioning “Your Brain On Porn”. She posts a comment in a one-person subreddit that spams NoFap. The pots is a 2012 rant about Gary Wilson’s TEDx talk, by ReaYBOP “expert” Jason Winters:

Jason Winters rant was thoroughly debunked on these 2 extensive pages:

———————-

Sciencearousal trolls a thread mentioning Gary Wilson’s book, disparaging both: Your Brain On Porn: Internet Pornography and the Emerging Science of Addiction

———————-

As Prause and her internet aliases have done countless times, Sciencearousal disparages Wilson’s TEDx talk:

There’s evidence that Prause (and some of the other “experts” listed on “RealYBOP”) harassed TED for 5 straight years… until its biased “science curator” gave in (the curator only has a bachelor’s degree in writing, not science) and placed an unmerited note on the talk. In reality everything in the TEDx talk is fully supported, with hundreds of new studies supporting its assertions since the talk was given (March, 2012). See these 2 extensive pages for scientific support for Wilson’s talk:

————————–

Sciencearousal continues to disparage Wilson while try to persuade the world that RealYBOP accurately represents the current state of the research (it doesn’t):

———————-

More inaccurate, unsupported claims by Sciencearousal. Continued attacks on Wilson:

Incidentally, the imposter site features cherry-picked studies, while excluding nearly every study linking porn use to negative outcomes (that is, the majority of porn studies). In those few RealYBOP studies listed that did report negative outcomes, RealYBOP omits such findings from its descriptions. Thanks to YBOP’s curated lists of relevant studies anyone can easily identify RealYBOP’s bias:

RealYBOP omitted all 45 neurological studies on porn users and CSB subjects, except for Prause et al., 2015 (RealYBOP doesn’t tell the readers about the 9 peer-reviewed papers that say that Prause’s EEG study actually supports addiction model).
RealYBOP omitted all but two of these 75 studies linking porn use to less sexual and relationship satisfaction. It misled the reader on those 2 studies (and others in the “love” category): as both link porn use to poorer relationship satisfaction or more infidelity: study 1, study 2.
RealYBOP omitted all 25 recent neuroscience-based literature reviews & commentaries, authored by some of the top neuroscientists in the world. All 21 papers support the addiction model.
RealYBOP omitted every study on this list of over 35 studies linking porn use to “un-egalitarian attitudes” toward women and sexist views. It omitted this 2016 meta-analysis of 135 studies assessing the effects of porn and sexual media use on beliefs, attitudes and behaviors: Media and Sexualization: State of Empirical Research, 1995–2015.
RealYBOP omitted all but two of the papers in this list of over 45 studies reporting findings consistent with escalation of porn use (tolerance), habituation to porn, and even withdrawal symptoms (all signs and symptoms associated with addiction). The two studies are by Nicole Prause and Alexander Štulhofer, whose carefully crafted write-ups mislead the reader: study 1 (Prause et al., 2015 – again); study 2 by Štulhofer.
RealYBOP omitted all but three of the papers in this list of over 35 studies linking porn use/porn addiction to sexual problems and lower arousal to sexual stimuli. Not surprisingly, the 3 studies are by Alexander Štulhofer, Joshua Grubbs, and James Cantor. In a blatant example of science deniers misrepresenting their own studies, the actual data in all 3 papers in fact reported links between sexual problems and porn use or porn addiction: study 1 by Štulhofer; study 2 by Grubbs; study 3 by James Cantor.
RealYBOP omitted all but two of the 27 studies countering the talking point that sex and porn addicts “just have high sexual desire” (same two papers misrepresented in the previous list: study by Štulhofer; study by James Cantor).
RealYBOP omitted all the papers in this list of over 75 studies linking porn use to poorer mental-emotional health and poorer cognitive outcomes.
RealYBOP omitted all 270 studies in this comprehensive list of peer-reviewed papers assessing porn’s effect on adolescents.

———————-

Sciencearousal posts, spamming porn addiction recovery site reddit/NoFap:

Incidentally, Prause has spent years defaming and harassing Nofap founder Alexander Rhodes. See these sections documenting Prause and Ley’s unethical harassment and defamation: Nicole Prause, David Ley & @BrainOnPorn’s long history of harassing & defaming Alexander Rhodes of NoFap

———————

Concurrently, sciencearousal creates a post, spamming porn addiction recovery site reddit/pornfree:

Sciencearousal posts 17 comments under the above post. Many comments involve defamation and disparagement of Wilson and this website.

This comment is identical to emails, social media posts, and Wikipedia edits by Prause. Prause fabricates a story that Wilson is being paid off by a charity. Not so, as documented.

For documentation of Prause’s lies and harassment related to the charity see:

Sciencearousal continues with falsehoods and disparagement:

As for cherry-picking, YBOP exposes many of RealYBOP’s “experts” as the cherry-pickers in this article: Porn Science Deniers Alliance (AKA: “Real Your Brain On Porn”)

Sciencearousal’s “expert” continues with defamation of Wilson and a Scottish charity:

More falsehoods and disparagement of Wilson and YBOP:

When called out for blatant trademark infringement, Sciencearousal accuses a r/pornfree member of “libel”:

Note: everyone on r/pornfree is aware of the legitimate YBOP, as a link to YourBrainOnPorn.com has been in the right-hand sidebar there for years.

When called out Sciencearousal responds by accusing the pornfree member of “misrepresenting the science”:

Sciencearousal escalates:

Pointing out blatant trademark infringement by RealYBOP is mischaracterized as “attacking scientists.”

Sciencearousal’s comments become increasingly bizarre:

No one accused anyone of “being in porn.” However, a few r/pornfree members wondered in comments if Sciencearousal might just be Prause. They, and the r/pornfree moderator, were obviously aware of Prause’s past history of employing various aliases to spread her propaganda on r/pornfree. Prause has long had an odd habit of creating most of her usernames from 2-4 capitalized words (i.e. GaryWilsonStalker). See list of her apparent aliases below. While many of the usernames and comment were deleted, a few examples with content remain:

https://www.reddit.com/user/SexMythBusters
https://www.reddit.com/user/ReadMoreAndMore
https://www.reddit.com/user/HeartInternetPorn
https://www.reddit.com/user/FightPower
https://www.reddit.com/user/DallasLandia
https://www.reddit.com/user/CupOJoe2010
https://www.reddit.com/user/GaryWilsonPervert
https://www.reddit.com/user/GaryWilsonSteas
https://www.reddit.com/user/PenisAddict
https://www.reddit.com/user/DataScienceLA
https://www.reddit.com/user/AskingForProof
https://www.reddit.com/user/JumpinJackFlashZ0oom
https://www.reddit.com/user/fappygirlmore
https://www.reddit.com/user/locuspocuspenisless
https://www.reddit.com/user/ijdfgo
https://www.reddit.com/user/vnwpwejfb
https://www.reddit.com/user/alahewakbear
https://www.reddit.com/user/gjacwo
http://www.reddit.com/user/SearchingForTruthNot (Account now deleted)
(Account now deleted)
http://www.reddit.com/user/HighHorseNotOn (Account now deleted)
http://www.reddit.com/user/SoManyMalts (Account now deleted)
https://www.reddit.com/user/TruthWithOut (Account now deleted)
https://www.reddit.com/user/sinwvon (Account now deleted)
https://www.reddit.com/user/RevealingAll (Account now deleted)
https://www.reddit.com/user/GermanExpat18 (Account now deleted)
https://www.reddit.com/user/sciencearousal

Many more (apparent) Prause aliases are exposed here, and here (See – PDF of Nicole Prause aliases she used to harass & defame).

When asked which RealYBOP “expert” they might be, Sciencearousal plays the victim:

Questioned as to ‘which model of what’ RealYBOP is claiming to falsify, Sciencearousal evades:

When asked for a second time to divulge identity, Sciencearousal resorts to disparaging YBOP and fabricating incidents:

Like Prause, Ley and some of the other RealYBOP “experts” often do, Sciencearousal disparages Don Hilton, Rob Weiss, IITAP and CSATs:

Several sections documenting Prause and Ley’s history of defaming and harassing CSAT’s, Don Hilton MD, and Rob Weiss:

————————–

Sciencearousal tunes up a few days later on r/NoFap, telling us that masturbation, not porn is the real problem. (Apparently, porn must be protected at all costs, even if it means throwing masturbation under the bus.)

Prause and Ley have been campaigning to blame masturbation for over 3 years: Sexologists deny porn-induced ED by claiming masturbation is the problem (2016), while simultaneously insisting that anyone mentioning porn-related problems is anti-masturbation. (Huh?)

——————

Sciencearousal on r/NoFap once again trying to convince men with problematic porn use that masturbation, not porn, is the real culprit. Also falsely claims that 7 labs have independently confirmed her assertion (simply untrue).

As for peer-reviewed data that quitting improves outcomes, see the first 10 studies on this page: Over 80 Studies demonstrating internet use & porn use causing negative outcomes & symptoms, and brain changes.

April-May, 2019: Two “NeuroSex” sockpuppets (SecondaryEd2020 & Sciencearousal) edit Wikipedia, inserting RealYourBrainOnporn.com links and Prause-like propaganda

On April 24th, the Sciencearousal username appeared on Wikipedia, inserting links to RealYourBrainOnporn.com and deleting legitimate material about pornography’s effects. This wasn’t Sciencearousal’s first attempt, as an alias (SecondaryEd2020) tried to do the same on April 17th. (Wikipedia’s rules prohibit sock-puppets, but pro-porn posters seem immune from its rules.) Screenshot of the Pornography Wikipedia talk page with SecondaryEd2020 and Sciencearousal, trying to convince other Wikipedia editors to allow her to cite “RealYourBrainOnPorn.com”:

Eventually Wikipedia banned both Sciencearousal and SecondaryEd2020 as sockpuppets of NeuroSex/Prause (several more sockpuppets are still being investigated): wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Wikipedia_sockpuppets_of_NeuroSex. (These 2 pages document over 20 apparent illicit sock-puppets of Nicole Prause, created to insert her propaganda and defame individuals and organizations: page 1, page 2.)

We present further evidence that Sciencearousal and SecondaryEd2020 and NeuroSex all are Prause.

April 14, 2019: SecondaryEd2020 attempting to insert “RealYourBrainOnPorn.com” into the Pornography Addiction Wikipedia page:

Within a few a days SecondaryEd2020 was banned as yet another sockpuppet of NeuroSex (Prause) – but that didn’t prevent Prause from creating another sockpuppet.

A few days later Prause created Sciencearousal, editing the Pornography Addiction Wikipedia page with material mirroring previous edits by other Prause sockpuppets. For example, Sciencearousal deletes well-known neurological studies by addiction neuroscientists (Neurobiology of Compulsive Sexual Behavior: Emerging Science (Kraus et al., 2016); HPA Axis Dysregulation in Men With Hypersexual Disorder (Chatzittofis, 2015):

Sciencearousal inserts the infamous 2016 AASECT proclamation (asserting sex addiction doesn’t exist) and disparages America’s top addiction experts at The American Society of Addiction Medicine (ASAM). Numerous Prause sockpuppets have inserted the same edits.

It must be stated that AASECT is not a scientific organization and cited nothing to support the assertions in its own press release – rendering its opinion meaningless. Most importantly AASECT’s proclamation was pushed through by Michael Aaron and a few other AASECT members using unethical “guerrilla tactics” as Aaron admitted in this Psychology Today blog post: Analysis: How the AASECT Sex Addiction Statement Was Created. For accurate accounting of AASECT’s propaganda, we suggest: Decoding AASECT’s “Position on Sex Addiction, Here’s to Hope for a Change, Alternative Facts: AASECT and the Anti Sex Addiction Rant, and The Revealing Backstory to the AASECT Position Statement on Sex/Porn Addiction.

Giving herself away, Sciencearousal adds two Nicole Prause papers to the pornography addiction page: (1) Modulation of Late Positive Potentials by Sexual Images in Problem Users and Controls Inconsistent with ‘Porn Addiction’ (Prause et al., 2015), and Analysis of “Data do not support sex as addictive” (Prause et al., 2017)

Both papers thoroughly exposed on these 2 pages:

———————–

Sciencearousal went on to edit Prause’s other obsession, the Wikipedia page of academic publisher MDPI. As explained in other elsewhere, Prause is obsessed with MDPI because (1) Behavioral Sciences published two articles that Prause disagrees with (because they discussed papers by her, among hundreds of papers by other authors), and (2) Gary Wilson is a co-author of Park et al., 2016. Prause has a long history of cyberstalking and defaming Wilson, chronicled in this very extensive page. The two papers:

Neuroscience of Internet Pornography Addiction: A Review and Update (Love et al., 2015)
Is Internet Pornography Causing Sexual Dysfunctions? A Review with Clinical Reports (Park et al., 2016)

Prause immediately insisted that MDPI retract Park et al., 2016. The professional response to scholarly articles one disapproves of is to publish a comment outlining any objections. Behavioral Sciences’s parent company, MDPI, invited Prause to do this. She declined. Instead of publishing a formal comment, she unprofessionally turned to threats and social media (and most recently the Retraction Watch blog) to bully MDPI into retracting Park et al., of which I am a co-author with 7 US Navy physicians (including two urologists, two psychiatrists and a neuroscientist). In addition, she informed MDPI that she had filed complaints with the American Psychological Association. She then filed complaints with all the doctors’ medical boards. She also pressured the doctors’ medical center and Institutional Review Board, causing a lengthy, thorough investigation, which found no evidence of wrongdoing on the part of the paper’s authors.

Prause also complained repeatedly to COPE (Committee on Publication Ethics). COPE finally wrote MDPI with a hypothetical inquiry about retraction, based on Prause’s narrative that the “patients weren’t consented.” MDPI thoroughly re-investigated the consents obtained by the doctors who authored the paper, as well as US Navy policy around obtaining consents. On and on Prause went, including employing multiple aliases to edit MDPI Wikipedia pages inserting falsehoods about Wilson, his coauthors. and the paper. For much more, see: From 2015 through 2019: Prause’s efforts to have Behavioral Sciences review paper (Park et al., 2016) retracted.

Below are examples of Prause (as Sciencearousal) inserting her usual drivel. First, she tried to insert a mistake by the Norwegian Register, who accidentally downgraded MDPI’s rating from the normal “1” to a “0”.

The downgraded rating was a clerical error, and had long been resolved on the MDPI Wikipedia page. Prause knows the zero rating was a clerical error, yet she tweeted last month that MDPI was downgraded and that MDPI is a predatory journal (both are false and both are in Sciencearousal’s Wikipedia edit):

Prause caught in another lie about the Norwegian ratings. The correct link to ratings page for each journal: https://dbh.nsd.uib.no/publiseringskanaler/VedtakNiva1. Search for MDPI and you will see that all its journals have a “1” rating, including Behavioral Sciences, where Park et al., 2016 was published.

Prause (as Sciencearousal) also inserted her usual set of falsehoods related to Park et al., 2016 and Gary Wilson:

May 5, 2109: Sciencearousal appeals her ban as a sockpuppet of NeuroSex. Wikipedia informs her they made no mistake (they know she is lying):

UPDATE (2020): as you can see, MDPI has always been rated as #1 – (and Prause has always been lying about the MDPI rating):

The 50+ suspected Prause sockpuppet aliases are listed below (but there’s no reason to think this list is complete).

There are probably many more we don’t know about…. and many more to come (PDF of Nicole Prause aliases she used to harass & defame).

May 9, 2019: Prause’s (Wayne Giampietro) reply to Gary Wilson’s cease and desist for trademark infringement contains numerous lies and false allegations

On May 1, 2019 the attorneys for the common-law owner (Gary Wilson) of the trademarks “Your Brain On Born” and “YourBrainOnPorn.com” (this website) sent a cease and desist letter to all of those who appeared to be behind a trademark-infringing site – www.realyourbrainonporn.com (the so-called “Experts”). The letter to Nicole Prause demanded, in addition, that she abandon her trademark-squatting application for the marks “Your Brain On Porn” and “YourBrainOnPorn.com.” See PDF of the 8-page cease and desist letter to Nicole Prause (May 1, 2019).

On May 9, 2019 we received a reply from former BackPage (sex trade) attorney Wyane Giampietro who was now representing Nicole Prause. The letter falsely asserted that Dr. Prause was not involved with realyourbrainonporn.com. A few paragraphs of Wayne Giampietro’s 3-page (reply) letter repeated Prause’s lies that my pages documenting her ongoing defamation and harassment constitute “untrue defamatory attacks upon Dr. Prause.“

Giampietro’s letter listed a few of the same Prause falsehoods documented on the “Prause pages.” He also demanded that I immediately remove all the pages documenting Prause’s unethical and illegal behaviors, and that I refrain from adding any “similar accusations” to YBOP:

Giampietro – “These statements made by your client are false, defamatory and actionable. He must remove them from his web site immediately, and refrain from posting any similar accusations in the future. “

Since May 9th I’ve added several new pages related to the trademark infringement/trademark squatting and harassment/defamation by RealYBOP Twitter (an apparent Prause alias), two related to the Hilton and Rhodes defamation lawsuits, an extensive page documenting Prause’s defamation and harassment of Alex Rhodes and some 30 new sections on Prause page #2, and Prause page #3, which document her escalating harassment and defamation. So no, Mr. Giampietro, I will not refrain from exposing your client as a serial defamer, harasser and cyberstalker. Nor, it seems, will Hilton, Rhodes, or the many Prause victims who have filed sworn affidavits about her in Federal court.

Because Prause often tweets or emails her lawyers’ letters, misrepresenting her fairy tales as factual, I am forced to expose Mr. Giampietro’s falsehoods below (the typos remain). As in her spurious 2015 cease and desist letter, Giampietro’s May 9^th letter, and all subsequent letters from Giampietro, Prause provides no evidence to support her fabricated allegations of victim-hood or untruths about me. Here I repond to Giampietro (whose statements are in maroon):

Giampietro – “Finally, despite having been warned in 2015 by counsel for Dr. Prause, Mr. Wilson has continued his barrage of untrue defamatory attacks upon Dr. Prause. Apparently he has embarked upon a vendetta against Dr. Praise and others with whom she is associated. Dr. Prause name alone appears on more than 4000 pages of Wilson’s web site, and over 108,000 times with his link online.”

Everything I have chronicled concerning Prause is true, and nothing Prause’s 2015 attorney (pre-Giampietro) alleged in his C&D was true. These are simply Prause talking points, calculated to shape public opinion. First, as you can see from this search, Prause’s name appears on only 110 out of YBOP 13,000 pages – not 4,000 pages as Prause falsely asserted. The vast majority of these mentions are links to other pages containing my and other’s critiques of Prause’s dubious papers and articles (I purposely do a lot of internal linking).

Prause is not the only researcher whose work I analyze. For example, YBOP contains critiques of multiple Josh Grubbs papers, which results in his name appearing 70 times in a YBOP search.

As for her claim that there are 108,000 mentions of “Prause” on YBOP, this falsehood was already debunked in this section.

Giampietro – “While a dispute regarding issues of public interest is one thing, making false and defamatory allegations against Dr. Prause is indefensible. Among the false allegations Wilson has made against Dr. Prause are: she has engaged in “obsessive, unrelenting cybcr-harassment” against Wilson”…

In fact, she is engaged in “obsessive, unrelenting cybcr-harassment” against me. Extensive documentation: page 1, page 2, page 3.

“she tells a porn addict to visit a prostitute (a violation of APA ethics and Calfornia law)”….

Oops. Prause caught in another untruth. Below is a screenshot of Prause’s original answer posted in response to this Quora question (Prause has since deleted her answer): How can I overcome masturbation and/or porn addiction? What are the best methods? Prause’s suggestion to visit a prostitute is in the last paragraph:

Prause’s quora answer shows a complete disregard for professional APA ethics, ethical and social norms, and the rule of law in California. This theme permeates everything revealed about Nicole Prause on this page.

she is “unprofessional and unethical”…

Most definitely. Also a serial defamer and harasser.

she was fired, terminated and/or reprimanded by the University of California,…

Never said that she was. However, UCLA did not renew Prause’s contract (late 2014 or early 2015). This coincided with Prause harassing and defaming UCLA colleague Rory Reid (Dr. Reid is still at UCLA). I hope a court, in the defamation suits against Prause, investigates the actual events surrounding Prause’s departure from UCLA, her harassment of Rory Reid, and any legal threats made by Prause towards UCLA personnel.

she falsified or utilized “bogus” data in her studies…

Never said this. However, I and others have pointed out that she has a long history of intentionally mischaracterizing the actual findings of porn related research (including her own).

she has been, or is currently, funded or receiving material support from pornography organizations…
she is, herself, involved in the porn industry…

Never said the above. Funny how Prause has made this claim numerous times on Twitter, in cease and desist letters, and in court documents, yet she can never provide a screenshot of me saying these things. That said, Prause has a very cozy relationship with many in the porn industry, including its main lobbying arm, The Free Speech Coalition. As for “material support”, the Vice President of the adult performer union APAG (Ruby) stated that Prause obtained porn performers through the Free Speech Coalition as experimental subjects for the OneTaste study that Prause now claims debunks porn addiction (yet to be published). Ruby also stated that Prause was friends with Eric Paul Leue, the (then) Executive Director of the Free Speech Coalition, the lobbying arm for the porn industry.

May, 2019: The World Health Organization publishes a paper describing Nicole Prause’s numerous ICD-11 comments (“antagonistic comments, such as accusations of a conflict of interest or incompetence”)

The World Health Organization publishes its own diagnostic manual known as the International Classification of Diseases (ICD), which includes diagnostic codes for all known diseases, including mental health disorders. The next edition of the ICD, the ICD-11, has now officially been adopted (2019). The beta version of ICD-11 has allowed comments since 2014 on proposed diagnoses, such as “Compulsive sexual behaviour disorder” (CSBD). Here’s where most of the comments are located for CSBD. Additional comments can be found in the “proposal section” for compulsive sexual behaviour disorder. To view the comments you must sign up and create a username.

Beginning in March, 2015 Nicole Prause has compulsively posted in all the comment sections related to CSBD. Her goal was to prevent the inclusion of CSBD in the ICD-11. Prause failed, as CSBD has now been adopted. The majority of Prause’s comments constitute personal attacks and defamation. The “substantive” portions of her comments often involve misrepresentation of both the science and the current state of the research on CSBD.

On May 6, 2019, WHO officials published the following paper in the eminent journal World Psychiatry –Public stakeholders’ comments on ICD‐11 chapters related to mental and sexual health. The paper summarized the nature of the comments with some quantatative data. WHO starts by detailing the number of comments and proposals. Note the large number of comments for compulsive sexual behaviour disorder:

Between January 1, 2012 and December 31, 2017, 402 comments and 162 proposals were submitted on mental, behavioural and neurodevelopmental disorders, sleep‐wake disorders, and conditions related to sexual health. The largest number of submissions related to mental, behavioural and neurodevelopmental disorders focused on compulsive sexual behaviour disorder (N=47), complex post‐traumatic stress disorder (N=26), bodily distress disorder (N=23), autism spectrum disorder (N=17), and gaming disorder (N=11). Submissions on conditions related to sexual health mainly addressed gender incongruence of adolescence and adulthood (N=151) and gender incongruence of childhood (N=39). Few submissions were related to sleep‐wake disorders (N=18).

Of the 47 comments under the main CSBD proposal 26 were by Nicole Prause! Prause also posted 2 proposals to delete CSBD, with an additional 10 comments. WHO is clearly describing Prause and her allies (David Ley, Roger Libby, Luke Adams, Tammy Ellis Johnson) in this excerpt:

Compulsive sexual behaviour disorder received the highest number of submissions of all mental disorders (N=47), but often from the same individuals (N=14).

WHO goes on, portraying the nature of the CSBD comments as polarized and describing Prause’s comments in which she personally attacked individuals and organizations, including numerous incidents of defamation (some of which have already been documented on the Prause pages):

The introduction of this diagnostic category has been passionately debated3 and comments on the ICD‐11 definition recapitulated ongoing polarization in the field. Submissions included antagonistic comments among commenters, such as accusations of a conflict of interest or incompetence (48%; κ=0.78) or claims that certain organizations or people would profit from inclusion or exclusion in ICD‐11 (43%; κ=0.82). One group expressed support (20%; κ=0.66) and considered that there is sufficient evidence (20%; κ=0.76) for inclusion, whereas the other strongly opposed inclusion (28%; κ=0.69), stressing poor conceptualization (33%; κ=0.61), insufficient evidence (28%; κ=0.62), and detrimental outcomes (22%; κ=0.86).
Both groups cited neuroscientific evidence (35%; κ=0.74) to support their arguments. Few commenters proposed actual changes to the definition (4%; κ=1). Instead, both sides discussed nosological questions such as conceptualization of the condition as impulsivity, compulsivity, behavioural addiction or expression of normal behavior (65%; κ=0.62). The WHO believes that the inclusion of this new category is important for a legitimate clinical population to receive services4. Concerns about overpathologizing are addressed in the CDDG, but this guidance does not appear in the brief definitions available to beta platform commenters.

Next, a few exmaples of Prause’s “antagonistic comments.” We begin with Prause’s numerous unprovoked and often libelous attacks on Gary Wilson (who never posted in the ICD-11 comments section). Prause accuses Wilson of commenting on the ICD-11, and lies about Wilson being “employed by The Reward Foundation.” (He is not. Nor has he ever received funds from TRF.) The following comment was Prause’s ad hominem response to commenter Monte Burris’s debunking of her usual assertions:

Six months later, for no reason in particular, Prause posts a comment on the ICD-11 about Wilson. Prause repeats the lies debunked here: May – July, 2018 – In emails, in the ICD-11 comments section, and on Wikipedia, Prause and her sockpuppets falsely claim that Wilson received 9,000 pounds from The Reward Foundation

Licensed therapist Staci Sprout (who Prause has repeatedly harassed, and reported to state boards) replied to Prause’s false statements:

This enraged Prause, who not only repeated her original lie, but added several more lies. Most debunked in this section: May – July, 2018: In emails, in the ICD-11 comments section, and on Wikipedia, Prause and her sockpuppets falsely claim that Wilson received 9,000 pounds from The Reward Foundation

Prause is lying. Wilson is paid by no one – the proceeds from his book go to charity. Wilson has never misrepresented his credentials (see: Ongoing – Prause falsely claims that Wilson has misrepresented his credentials).

Staci replied one more time, providing links that expose Prause as lying:

Prause continued with the now familiar falsehoods, while disparaging Staci Sprout:

Hmmm.. bankruptcy, just as dozens of fake names on porn recovery sites have been saying since 2013. As for the LAPD and UCLAPD, both said in 2016 that Prause never filed anything with their departments. An FOIA from the FBI exposed Prause as lying about reporting Wilson. As for Prause claiming Wilson never challenged her claims, he has clearly done so on these extensive pages:

Darryl Mead, PhD, the Chair of The Reward Foundation, eventually responded:

Prause becomes even more irrational and vituperative:

Prause’s many lies are specifically addressed and debunked in these sections. (We are amazed at how many lies Prause can fit into a paragraph – impressive.)

Darryl Mead, PhD again:

More Prause lies. She must always have the last word (last lie):

There’s no third party or news outlet looking into The Reward Foundation (no link, of course). Marnia and Gary never listed anyone as their “employer.” As for the defamatory claim about Wilson testifying for nutcase Sevier, it’s debunked here – May 20, 2018: Ley & Prause falsely claim that Gary Wilson & Don Hilton gave evidence in a case by Chris Sevier

—————

More examples of Prause’s inaccurate, aggressive and defamatory comments. Here Prause misrepresents the research on PIED, while disparaging Stefanie Carnes:

Disparaging Stefanie Carnes:

As we recently outlined in our chapter (Prause & Williams, 2018), this is a common mistake specific to Marriage and Family Therapists like Stephanie Carnes. They misperceive their own clinical efficacy regularly, in a manner financially beneficial to them, and refuse to use treatments supported by research.

Prause cites her opinion piece, as she had nothing else to cite. More:

There are zero clinical data supporting the false claim that a treatment of “abstinence” reduces ED. Indeed, there are zero randomized controlled trials from which such a claim could even possibly be made. This is a fabrication by Stephanie Carnes.

False. See below.

Misrepresenting the research:

There are zero clinical data supporting the false claim that a treatment of “abstinence” reduces ED…

Not true. This list contains 38 studies linking porn use/porn addiction to sexual problems and lower arousal to sexual stimuli. The first 7 studies in the list demonstrate causation, as participants eliminated porn use and healed chronic sexual dysfunctions.

In reality, multiple laboratory studies and a representative survey have found sex film viewing is associated with less sexual dysfunction and erectile problems…

The above claims are exposed as BS in this section critiquing the RealYBOP “research page” – Erectile And Other Sexual Dysfunctions Section.

—————

Prause lecturing no one in particular, falsely accusing all involved of “misrepresenting actual neuroscientists,” and “the intention to value profit over patients at any cost of course“:

Prause claims – “I also have cited multiple neuroscientists explicit conclusions (as above)“. In reality, Prause cited only one neuroscience paper “above” – her own 2015 EEG study – Prause et al., 2015. As with many of the studies she cites, that study, Prause et al., 2015, isn’t what it appears to be. While Prause boldly asserted that her lone, deeply flawed EEG study had debunked porn addiction, nine peer-reviewed papers disagree. All nine papers do agree that Prause et al., 2015 actually found desensitization or habituation in the more frequent porn users (a phenomenon consistent with addiction): Peer-reviewed critiques of Prause et al., 2015.

————-

Staci Sprout said nothing about Prause or research, yet Prause is compelled to disparage Sprout, claiming that Staci is “spamming” the ICD-11. Let’s do the math: Prause – 38 comments/posts; Staci Sprout – 4 comments (2 of which were defending Gary Wilson). As you can see, pure bile:

As for Prause claiming “I have no financial or professional conflict of interest to report,” we disagree. See this page for documented conflicts: Is Nicole Prause Influenced by the Porn Industry?

In addition to the above, adult performer Ruby the Big Rubousky, who is vice president of the Adult Performers Actors Guild, stated that Prause obtained porn performers as study subjects through the most prominent porn industry interest group, the Free Speech Coalition. (Prause has since deleted this Twitter thread). See: The Free Speech Coalition allegedly provided subjects for a Prause study that “debunks” porn addiction

It’s important to know that the enterprising Prause offered (for a fee) her “expert” testimony against sex addiction and porn addiction. It seems as though Prause is attempting to sell her services to profit from the unsupportable anti-porn addiction conclusions of her two EEG studies (1, 2), even though 17 peer-reviewed analyses say both studies actually lend support to the addiction model! Prause has since deleted the following from her Liberos website:

—————–

After Stefanie Carnes PhD (who has published several studies) cites multiple studies and reviews in support of the addiction model, Prause responds with personal attacks (because Prause cannot address the studies cited):

Comments: Yes, Carnes did send Prause a cease and desist letter for her numerous defamatory statements about IITAP and IITAP therapists, which are documented in these sections:

On the other hand, Prause sent at least 10 bogus cease and desist letters, which were meant to intimidate, yet contained nothing but fabricated assertions. See:

Prause falsehood – “SASH board of directors has religious faith healers.”

—————-

In response to Candice Christiansen’s extensive comment, citing numerous studies and ASAM, Prause tells Candice that she doesn’t understand science, and is profiting from treating “these behaviors”:

Prause is omitting one tiny detail: her Liberos company was founded to “profit from treating these behaviors” (compulsive sexual behaviors)! Prause uses “direct current stimulation” (DCS) to alter sex drive, including to treat compulsive sexual behaviors as long as her clients refer to their porn addiction and sex addiction as “higher sex drive.” Screenshot from Liberos DCS page:

DCS is not free:

DCS is not FDA approved. Ironic that Prause attacks sex and porn addiction therapists for using unproven methods (according to Prause), yet she uses a completely unproven, novel method.

————

In reponse to no one, Prause’s goes off, disparaging Don Hilton, Stef Carnes, Debra Kaplan, Candice Christiansen with the same tired litanny of personal attacks and propaganda:

Debunking this Prause claim:

The largest neuroscience study to date falsified a core tenet of the addiction model, the cue reactivity biomarker. No one has published data failing to replicate these studies.

Reality: Once again she is touting Prause et al., 2015., which actually supports the addiction model. This study (finally) compared the 2013 subjects from Steele et al., 2013 to an actual control group (yet it suffered from the same methodological flaws named above). The results: Compared to controls “individuals experiencing problems regulating their porn viewing” had lower brain responses to one-second exposure to photos of vanilla porn. Prause as lead author claims these results “debunk porn addiction.” What legitimate scientist would claim that their lone anomalous study has debunked a well established field of study?

In reality, the findings of Prause et al. 2015 align perfectly with Kühn & Gallinat (2014), which found that more porn use correlated with less brain activation in response to pictures of vanilla porn. Put simply, frequent porn users were desensitized to static images of vanilla porn. They were bored (habituated or desensitized). Nine peer-reviewed papers agree that this study actually found desensitization/habituation in frequent porn users (consistent with addiction): Peer-reviewed critiques of Prause et al., 2015.

Even if Prause were correct she conveniently ignores the gaping hole in her “falsification” assertion: 24 other neurological studies have reported cue-reactivity or cravings (sensitization) in compulsive porn users: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24. Science doesn’t go with the lone anomalous study hampered by serious methodological flaws; science goes with the preponderance of evidence (unless you are agenda-driven).

And this Prause claim:

There are also a series of behavioral studies replicated by independent laboratories falsifying other predictions of the addiction model (reviewed in Prause et al., 2016)

Nope. Prause et al., 2016 is dismantled and debunked line by line, claim by claim, in this extensive critique: Critique of: Letter to the editor “Prause et al. (2015) the latest falsification of addiction predictions“ (2016), Nicole Prause, Vaughn R. Steele, Cameron Staley, Dean Sabatinelli, Greg Hajcake.

—————

Prause disparages David House with the same vile, accusatory language (while she sells clients non-approved brain stimulation for their “high sexual desire”):

Re AASECT: First, AASECT is not a scientific organization and cited nothing to support the assertions in its press release – rendering its support meaningless.

Most importantly AASECT’s proclamation was pushed through by Michael Aaron and a few other AASECT members using unethical “guerrilla tactics” as Aaron admitted in this Psychology Today blog post: Analysis: How the AASECT Sex Addiction Statement Was Created. An excerpt from this analysis Decoding AASECT’s “Position on Sex Addiction, summarized Aaron’s blog post:

Finding AASECT’s tolerance of the “sex addiction model” to be “deeply hypocritical”, in 2014 Dr. Aaron set out to eradicate support for the concept of “sex addiction” from AASECT’s ranks. To accomplish his goal, Dr. Aaron claims to have deliberately sowed controversy among AASECT members in order to expose those with viewpoints that disagreed with his own, and then to have explicitly silenced those viewpoints while steering the organization toward its rejection of the “sex addiction model.”
Dr. Aaron justified using these “renegade, guerilla [sic] tactics” by reasoning that he was up against a “lucrative industry” of adherents to the “sex addiction model” whose financial incentives would prevent him from bringing them over to his side with logic and reason. Instead, to effect a “quick change” in AASECT’s “messaging,” he sought to ensure that pro-sex addiction voices were not materially included in the discussion of AASECT’s course change.
Dr. Aaron’s boast comes across as a little unseemly. People rarely take pride in, much less publicize, suppressing academic and scientific debate. And it seems odd that Dr. Aaron spent the time and money to become CST certified by an organization he deemed “deeply hypocritical” barely a year after joining it (if not before). If anything, it is Dr. Aaron who appears hypocritical when he criticizes pro-“sex addiction” therapists for having a financial investment in the “sex addiction model”, when, quite obviously, he has a similar investment in promoting his opposing viewpoint

Several commentaries and critiques expose AASECT’s proclamation for what it truly is:

Alternative Facts: AASECT and the Anti Sex Addiction Rant
The Revealing Backstory to the AASECT Position Statement on Sex/Porn Addiction
Response to AASECT Position Statement
Denial of Sex Addiction Hurts Our Clients
Here’s to Hope for a Change
How does the AASECT discounting of Sex & Porn Addiction affect the 12-step community?
The sex addiction debate

————–

Replying to no one, Prause disparages the 3,000 medical doctors at the American Society for Addiction Medicine:

Prause hates ASAM because in 2011, the American Society for Addiction Medicine (ASAM) came out with a public statement clarifying that behavioral addictions (sexual, food, gambling) are fundamentally like substance addictions in terms of brain changes. Said ASAM:

We all have the brain reward circuitry that makes food and sex rewarding. In fact, this is a survival mechanism. In a healthy brain, these rewards have feedback mechanisms for satiety or ‘enough.’ In someone with addiction, the circuitry becomes dysfunctional such that the message to the individual becomes ‘more’, which leads to the pathological pursuit of rewards and/or relief through the use of substances and behaviors.

ASAM specifically addressed sexual behavior addictions:

QUESTION: This new definition of addiction refers to addiction involving gambling, food, and sexual behaviours. Does ASAM really believe that food and sex are addicting?
ANSWER: The new ASAM definition makes a departure from equating addiction with just substance dependence, by describing how addiction is also related to behaviours that are rewarding. … This definition says that addiction is about functioning and brain circuitry and how the structure and function of the brains of persons with addiction differ from the structure and function of the brains of persons who do not have addiction. … Food and sexual behaviours and gambling behaviours can be associated with the “pathological pursuit of rewards” described in this new definition of addiction.

————–

More victimhood combined with personal attacks and misrepresentation of the research:

Actually there is scientific consensus: The ICD-11 accepted CSBD, and that was partially due to the fact that there are now 44 neuroscience-based studies (MRI, fMRI, EEG, neuropsychological, hormonal), providing strong support for the addiction model as their findings mirror the neurological findings reported in substance addiction studies.

————–

Geoffrey Goodman, whom Prause later maliciously reported to his university for calling her out, comments. Prause responds with her usual ad hominem:

As for Prause’s claims about subjects “controlling their arousal,” it’s all smoke and mirrors. The frequent porn users didn’t have greater ability to control their arousal better, they were desensitized or bored with vanilla porn. This science scam by Prause & Winters was exposed in this critique: Critique of: Letter to the editor “Prause et al. (2015) the latest falsification of addiction predictions”, 2016.). Moreover, the inability to control use isn’t assessed by arousal ratings; it’s assessed by questionnaires. See this second debunking of this Prausian talking point.

—————

Stefanie Carnes and Prause:

First, Prause makes money treating clients for ‘high sexual desire.” Second, Prause lied when she said that Kraus, Voon & Potenza “rejected” the addiction model. Read for yourself: Should Compulsive Sexual Behavior be Considered an Addiction? (Kraus et al., 2016). In fact, in 2017 Kraus, Voon, Potenza, Gola & Kor published this Lancet article, which explicitly states that WHO should categorize CSBD as an addictive disorder: Is excessive sexual behaviour an addictive disorder? (Potenza et al., 2017). Excerpt:

Compulsive sexual behaviour disorder seems to fit well with non-substance addictive disorders proposed for ICD-11, consistent with the narrower term of sex addiction currently proposed for compulsive sexual behaviour disorder on the ICD-11 draft website.³We believe that classification of compulsive sexual behaviour disorder as an addictive disorder is consistent with recent data and might benefit clinicians, researchers, and individuals suffering from and personally affected by this disorder.

Stefanie Carnes on her AASECT blog post, with a Prause reply spewing her usual array of disparaging remarks and unsupported assertions:

Prause claim:

The vast majority of neuroscientists, of which I speak with regularly and extensively, because it is my field, do not believe sex or porn are addictive.

Reality: First CSBD was accepted by the world’s health experts. Second, and most important, there have been 54 neuroscience-based studies (MRI, fMRI, EEG, neuropsychological, hormonal) published on porn users and CSBD subjects. Out of all the neuroscientists on those 44 papers, Prause is the ONLY one to publicly state that porn/sex addiction does not exist. Note – all 44 studies provide strong support for the addiction model as their findings (including her own) mirror the neurological findings reported in substance addiction studies.

Prause drivel:

The division between profiteering therapists with no science training asserting to interpret neuroscience data differently than the actual scientists themselves interpret it has been a longstanding strategy to line their pockets.

Reality: The real experts’ opinions on porn/sex addiction? This list contains 23 recent literature reviews & commentaries by some of the top neuroscientists in the world. All support the addiction model.

————–

Prause reponding to Geoff Goodman, PhD with her usual disparaging remarks, citing her and David Ley’s unsupported opinion piece – Ley et al., 2014 (not 2015 as Prause wrote).

The following is a very long analysis of Ley et al., 2014, which goes line-by-line, citation by citation, exposing all the shenanigans Ley and Prause incorporated in their “review”: The Emperor Has No Clothes: A Fractured Fairytale Posing As A Review. It completely dismantles the so-called review, and documents dozens of misrepresentations of the research they cited. The most shocking aspect of the Ley review is that it omitted any study that reported negative effects related to porn use or found porn addiction! Yes, you read that right. While purporting to write an “objective” review, these two sexologists justified omitting hundreds of studies on the grounds that these were correlational studies. Guess what? Virtually all studies on porn are correlational.

Since Ley et al., was published, over 20 legitimate reviews have come out. The real experts’ opinions on porn/sex addiction? This list contains 29 recent literature reviews & commentaries by some of the top neuroscientists in the world. All support the addiction model.

Update: David J Ley is now being paid by the porn industry to promote their websites, while he fervently denies the harms of porn. See – Ongoing – David J. Ley is now collaborating with porn industry giant xHamster to promote its websites and convince users that porn addiction and sex addiction are myths.

————–

Next, Prause responds to no one, posting her short commentary, and fabricating nonsense about imaginary attempts to silence her (from the person who posted more comments than everyone else combined!), and “profiteers”:

Prause’s paper falsified nothing as it addressed one person masturbating to porn – who wasn’t a porn or sex addict.

—————

In this comment Prause cites her 240-word letter to Lancet, which contains zero citations to support her claims, and is completely debunked in this extensive critique: Analysis of “Data do not support sex as addictive” (Prause et al., 2017). The real experts’ opinions on porn/sex addiction? This list contains 23 recent literature reviews & commentaries by some of the top neuroscientists in the world.

————-

Prause cites a sloppy, scientifically inaccurate PDF from 3 kink organizations (notice how she rarely cites actual studies – and if she does, they are usually her own studies).

The kink organizations’ PDF is dismantled and debunked, line by line, citation by citation here: Dismantling the “group position” paper opposing porn and sex addiction (November, 2017)

Perhaps you are wondering how YBOP can produce so many critiques of reviews or articles purporting to debunk sex and porn addiction? It’s mostly cut and paste for YBOP as all the addiction opponents cite the same often-irrelevant studies (or each other’s drivel), while ignoring the vast preponderance of evidence. These extensive critiques debunk all the usual often-repeated talking points and cherry-picked studies:

—————-

Prause posted her upcoming study 3-4 times on ICD-11. As of July, 2019 it still hasn’t been published. The facts surrounding this paper are very, very interesting.

This paper was funded by “Orgasmic Meditation” (to legitimize their very shaky reputation), was not about porn or sex addiction, and may have used subjects supplied by the porn industry! Let’s expand on this.

Adult performer Ruby the Big Rubousky, who is vice president of the Adult Performers Actors Guild, stated that Prause obtained porn performers as study subjects through the most prominent porn industry interest group, the Free Speech Coalition. (Prause has since deleted this twitter thread).

The study (or studies) in question is said to be funded by OneTaste, a for-profit company charging $4,300.00 for a 3-day workshop to learn clitoral manipulation. As described in this Bloomberg.com expose, OneTaste offers several different packages:

Currently, students pay $499 for a weekend course, $4,000 for a retreat, $12,000 for the coaching program, and $16,000 for an “intensive.” In 2014, OneTaste started selling a yearlong $60,000 membership, which lets buyers take all the courses they want and sit in the front row.

The official description of the OM study:

“Neurological effects and health benefits of orgasmic meditation” Principal Investigator, Direct costs: $350,000, Duration: 2 years, OneTaste Foundation, co-Investigators: Greg Siegle, Ph.D.

In the Bloomberg article Chief Executive Officer Joanna Van Vleck pretty much says that OneTaste is now dependent on Prause’s upcoming EEG studies to legitimize OM (which is now being investigated by the FBI):

The newish CEO is betting that the study OneTaste has funded on the health benefits of OM, which has taken brain-activity readings from 130 pairs of strokers and strokees, will draw fresh crowds. Led by researchers from the University of Pittsburgh, the study is expected to yield the first of multiple papers…eventually. “The science that’s coming out to back what this is and what the benefits are is going to be huge in terms of scaling,” Van Vleck says.

Put simply, Prause was hired to bolster the commercial interests of the heavily tainted and very controversial company.

To perform the OM study Prause needed willing participants comfortable with being hooked up to machines, having their genitals exposed, and being masturbated by a man as researchers observe their responses. It’s not hard to imagine that it was challenging to locate females willing to act as sexual guinea pigs in Prause’s Hollywood Boulevard office. Whatever the reasons, Ruby insisted that Prause obtained subjects for her OM study via the FSC, and that Prause had an ongoing relationship with the FSC:

If the above is true it reveals a very cozy working relationship between Prause and the FSC. A relationship that may have started in 2015, when with Prause publicly accepted assistance from the deep-pocketed FSC. This was immediately followed by Prause throwing her scientific weight behind some the FSC’s major agendas (rejection of Proposition 60 [condoms in porn], porn stars are not damaged goods, porn addiction is a myth, porn is not public health crisis, watching porn is mostly beneficial, etc.)

The plot thickens. Originally funded to explore only the benefits of “Orgasmic Meditation,” Prause began crowing that her yet to be published OM study “falsified” porn and sex addiction. In her tweets and comments Prause revealed that she showed her clitoris stroking couples “sex films” and the results (in her opinion) debunked the porn addiction model. Prause’s OM study has magically morphed from a “partnered sex” investigation into an anti-porn addiction, pro-porn industry paper. How could this happen?

—————-

David Ley falsely asserting that OCD is probably synonymous with CSBD.

Ley suggests to WHO – “this category should only be supported if there is extant research showing effective differential diagnosis from individuals experiencing OCD.” Those studies you’re demanding have already been published, David.

In arguing against the concept of behavioral addictions, including porn addiction, skeptics like Ley & Prause often claim that that addiction is really just a form of OCD. Research demonstrates that addictions differ from OCD in many substantive ways. In fact, the DSM-5 has separate categories for OCD and behavioral addictions, so its experts realize that the two conditions are physiologically different. An excerpt from this 2016 review sums it up:

Obsessive-compulsive spectrum disorders have been considered to conceptualize sexual compulsivity (40) because some studies have found individuals with hypersexual behavior are on the obsessive-compulsive disorder (OCD) spectrum. OCD for hypersexual behavior is not consistent with DSM-5 (1) diagnostic understandings of OCD, which exclude from the diagnosis those behaviors from which individuals derive pleasure. Although obsessive thoughts of the OCD type often have sexual content, the associated compulsions performed in response to the obsessions are not carried out for pleasure. Individuals with OCD report feelings of anxiety and disgust rather than sexual desire or arousal when confronted with situations triggering obsessions and compulsions, with the latter being performed only to quell uneasiness the obsessive thoughts arouse. (41)

Porn addiction naysayers often claim that CSBD is nothing more than obsessive compulsive disorder (OCD), yet this well-worn talking point has little empirical support: (excerpt from Revisiting the Role of Impulsivity and Compulsivity in Problematic Sexual Behaviors, 2018).

Few studies have examined associations between compulsivity and hypersexuality. Among males with nonparaphilic hypersexual disorder, the lifetime prevalence of obsessive compulsive disorder—a psychiatric disorder characterized by compulsivity—ranges from 0% to 14% (Kafka, 2015). Obsessiveness—which may be associated with compulsive behavior (Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory 2 (MMPI-2); Butcher, Dahlstrom, Graham, Tellegen, & Kaemmer, 1989)—in treatment-seeking men with hypersexuality has been found to be elevated relative to a comparison group, but the effect size of this difference was weak (Reid & Carpenter, 2009).
When the association between the level of obsessive-compulsive behavior—assessed by a subscale of the Structured Clinical Interview for DSM-IV (SCID-II) (First, Gibbon, Spitzer, Williams, & Benjamin, 1997)—and the level of hypersexuality was examined among treatment-seeking males with hypersexual disorder, a trend toward a positive, weak association was found (Carpenter, Reid, Garos, & Najavits, 2013). On the basis of the aforementioned results, compulsivity appears to contribute in a relatively small manner to hypersexuality.

Relevant excerpts from Online Porn Addiction: What We Know and What We Don’t—A Systematic Review (2019):

While there are definite overlaps between hypersexuality and conditions such as obsessive-compulsive disorder (OCD) and other impulse control disorders [61], there are also some notable differences pointed out: for example, OCD behaviors do not involve reward, unlike sexual behavior. Moreover, while engaging in compulsions might result in temporary relief for OCD patients [62], hypersexual behavior is usually associated by guilt and regret after committing the act [63]. Also, the impulsivity that can sometimes dominate the patient’s behavior is incompatible with the careful planning that is sometimes required in CSB (for example, in regards to a sexual encounter) [64].
Goodman thinks that addiction disorders lie at the intersection of compulsive disorders (which involve anxiety reduction) and impulsive disorders (which involve gratification), with the symptoms being underpinned by neurobiological mechanisms (serotoninergic, dopaminergic, noradrenergic, and opioid systems) [65]. Stein agrees with a model combining several ethiopathogenical mechanisms and proposes an A-B-C model (affective dysregulation, behavioral addiction, and cognitive dyscontrol) to study this entity [61].
From an addictive behavior standpoint, hypersexual behavior relies on sharing core aspects of addiction. These aspects, according to the DSM-5 [1], refer to the mentioned problematic consumption model applied to hypersexual behavior, both offline and online [6,66,67]. Evidence of tolerance and withdrawal in these patients might probably be key in characterizing this entity as an addictive disorder [45]. Problematic use of cybersex is also often conceptualized as a behavioral addiction [13,68].

Compulsive sexual behavior disorder in obsessive-compulsive disorder: Prevalence and associated comorbidity (2019) – Study reported that CSBD rates are actually lower in those with OCD than in general population:

In this study, we were interested in the prevalence and the associated sociodemographic and clinical features of CSBD in patients with OCD. First, we found that 3.3% of patients with OCD had current CSBD and 5.6% had lifetime CSBD, with a significantly higher prevalence in men than in women. Second, we found that other conditions, particularly mood, obsessive–compulsive, and impulse-control disorders, were more common in OCD patients with CSBD than in those without CSBD, but not disorders due to substance use or addictive behaviors.
The early estimations of prevalence rates of CSBD provided by Carnes (1991) and Coleman (1992) suggested that up to 6% of people from the general population suffer from compulsive sexual behavior. Although it is unclear how these estimates were obtained (Black, 2000), subsequent epidemiological research confirmed that compulsive sexuality, which may include increased masturbation frequency, pornography use, number of sexual partners, and extramarital affairs, is common in the general population (Dickenson et al., 2018). Our findings on prevalence rates of CSBD in OCD seem roughly comparable to those in the general population (Langstrom & Hanson, 2006; Odlaug et al., 2013; Skegg, Nada-Raja, Dickson, & Paul, 2010).
In conclusion, our data indicate that prevalence rates of CSBD in OCD are comparable to those in the general population and in other diagnostic cohorts. Moreover, we found that CSBD in OCD was more likely comorbid with other impulsive, compulsive, and mood disorders, but not with behavioral- or substance-related addictions. This finding supports the conceptualization of CSBD as a compulsive–impulsive disorder. Going forward, standardized measures with sound psychometric properties are needed to assess presence and severity of CSBD. Future research should continue to consolidate the conceptualization of this disorder and to gather additional empirical data, in order to ultimately improve clinical care.

Update: David J Ley is now being paid to promote their websites, while he fervently denies the harms of porn. See – David J. Ley is now collaborating with porn industry giant xHamster to promote its websites and convince users that porn addiction and sex addiction are myths.

——————

Others – May, 2019: Prause triggers defamation per se lawsuit with sexual harassment claim against Donald Hilton, MD

As documented in other sections here, Nicole Prause has a history of defaming Donald Hilton MD:

While these incidents might have been sufficient to warrant legal action, it wasn’t until Prause sank to accusing Dr. Hilton of sexual harassment that a suit was filed. The court filings are here.

Initial 17-page complaint (May 8, 2019): Donald Hilton defamation lawsuit against Nicole R Prause (later moved to Federal Court, and amended)

On July 24, 2019 Don Hilton amended his lawsuit to include:

Affidavits from 9 other victims of Prause,
Prause’s malicious complaint to the Texas Board of Medical Examiners containing false and defamatory statements,
Prause’s accusations with two different professional journals in which Dr. Hilton has published, incorrectly accusing Dr. Hilton of falsifying and exaggerating his credentials.

PDF’s of amendments to Hilton’s lawsuit:

UPDATE: Nicole R. Prause filed a motion to dismiss Donald Hilton’s defamation lawsuit against her. Prause’s motion contained false statements and myriad unsupported allegations. Don Hilton responded with a 21-page opposition to dismiss and 57 pages of exhibits.

Downloadable PDF – August 9, 2019: Don Hilton’s 21-page opposition to Nicole Prause’s motion to dismiss defamation per se case.
Downloadable PDF – August 9, 2019: 57-pages of exhibits accompanying Don Hilton’s 21-page opposition to Prause’s motion to dismiss

Update (November 26, 2019): Prause’s motion to dismiss Donald Hilton’s defamation lawsuit is denied (the lawsuit will go forward).

Downloadable PDF – November 26, 2019: Prause’s Motion to Dismiss Hilton Lawsuit is denied.
Extensive page exposing Prause’s lies and fabrications: Nicole Prause & David Ley commit perjury in Hilton defamation lawsuit (September, 2019).

I provide screenshots of a few pages from the original 17-page complaint, describing the key allegations:

————————

———————————-

—————————-

The complaint continues for an additional 12 pages. Below we provide pages 9-12, “Defendant Prause Defamed Dr. Hilton“:

———————————-

———————————–

———————–

————————–

For documents related to Hilton’s amended complaint, see these sections:

Update (ongoing): Prause and presumed aliases (e.g. @BrainOnPorn) target Hilton even AFTER his defamation suit is filed

June, 2019: David Ley and Prause (as RealYBOP Twitter & “sciencearousal”) continue their campaign to connect porn recovery forums to white supremacists/Nazis

It’s 2019 and not much has changed. David Ley and Prause (as RealYBOP Twitter & “sciencearousal”) are still campaigning to connect porn recovery forums and anti-porn activists to anti-Semitism and fascism. This is just the latest, as we have already documented Prause and Ley’s previous attempts in other sections:

It appears that David Ley collaborated again with journalist Rob Kuznia to produce the following June, 2019 NY Times piece: “Among Some Hate Groups, Porn Is Viewed as a Conspiracy.” Back in 2017 Kuznia collaborated with Prause and Ley to produce a factually inaccurate hit-piece for The Daily Beast. The 2017 article painted Prause as a victim of Gary Wilson’s supposed stalking, while promoting Prause’s two high profile EEG studies as landing, “like PR torpedoes on the controversial notion that sex or porn can be addictive like booze and drugs.” They were bombs all right.

In fact, the opposite of Kuznia’s statement is true as Prause is the perpetrator (not the victim), and her two EEG studies were critiqued an unbelievable total of 17 times in the peer-reviewed literature. In fact, experts stated that that the results of these flawed studies actually appear to support the porn-addiction model:

Steele et al., 2013 – paper 1, paper 2, paper 3, paper 4, paper 5, paper 6, paper 7, paper 8
Prause et al., 2015 – paper 1, paper 2, paper 3, paper 4, paper 5, paper 6, paper 7, paper 8, paper 9

Kuznia’s 2017 hit-piece purposely omitted all the other neurological studies on this list of 46 neuroscience-based studies. Taken together, these studies provide strong support for a porn-addiction model. We say “purposely,” because Kuznia was given the list of research by Wilson, along with hundreds of other studies on this list. He ignored them all – unlike the World Health Organization, which has adopted a diagnosis for “Compulsive sexual behavior disorder” that is plenty broad enough to encompass “porn addicts.”

As was cleverly done in his 2017 Daily Beast article, Kuznia tricks the reader into presuming connections that don’t really exist. For example, in this new piece he places two unconnected sentences into a single paragraph to fool the reader into thinking that reddit/nofap is populated by white nationalists and somehow connected to the Proud Boys.

For example, a forum on Reddit is a support group of sorts for 440,000 members who take breaks from masturbation and porn for what they believe to be mental, physical and sexual-health reasons. The Proud Boys, a self-professed “western chauvinist” group, encouraged a similar message.

Neither is the case, and Kuznia provides no evidence. But hey, that’s what you can expect from agenda-driven journalists.

Concurrently with the latest Kuznia smear, Prause tunes up with two apparent aliases representing her new website (which illegally infringes on YBOP’s trademarks): realyourbrainonporn twitter account and reddit user scienceofarousal. First, here are the targeted tweets (which both Ley and Prause retweet):

RealYBOP falsely claims the “anti-porn” movement is rooted in hate groups.

Next, RealYBOP links to the Xhamster thread where (in December, 2018) Prause defamed Alexander Rhodes of NoFap. (For details, see December, 2018: Prause joins Xhamster to smear NoFap & Alexander Rhodes; induces Fatherly.com to publish a hit-piece where Prause is the “expert”.)

RealYBOP trolls another thread with Prause’s standard allegations about being stalked or receiving rape threats. Prause has yet to provide documentation of these incidents. On the other hand, the page you’re reading, and its sister page, document Prause lying numerous times by making false claims that Gary Wilson, Alex Rhodes, and Clay Olsen have threatened or stalked her physically.

As RealYBOP was tweeting, the RealYBOP Reddit account (user/sciencearousal) was spamming r/nofap with the Kuznia article, implying that r/nofap is a hate group:

Sciencearousal (Prause) followed up her post with what on the surface appears to be an uncharacteristically sincere answer:

However, closer examination reveals a link to one of Prause & Ley’s all time favorite propaganda articles: a 2016 David Duke article with a link to Gary Wilson’s TEDx talk. Ley and Prause have used this over and over to suggest (falsely) that Wilson is allied with Duke. That’s what sciencearousal is trying to do with her oh-so-reasonable comment (hoping not to be deleted). Disgusting ploy.

A few more examples:

Prause immediately retweeted it (then later deleted her tweet):

Wilson’s TEDx talk has 12+ million views, so thousands of folks of all stripes have linked to (and recommended) Wilson’s talk, “The Great Porn Experiment.” How does this implicate Gary Wilson as a “white supremacist?” It doesn’t, of course. This ridiculous assertion is like suggesting all dog lovers are Nazis because Hitler loved his dogs.

In the Kuznia article Ley asserts that he has received “death threats.” Whether he has or not, Ley has certainly lied about receiving death threats from YBOP. In April, 2019. David Ley tweeted that the folks at YBOP had threatened his life.

David Ley is lying about YBOP death threats. Nor have the “folks at YBOP” censored, stalked, or deplatformed David Ley. Simply ridiculous.

Ley was asked several times on Twitter to supply evidence to support his claims. He provided none, as can be seen in the above thread. Ley has engaged in several instances of documented defamation. This latest defamatory assertion that YBOP “folks” threatened his life falls into a special category of defamation per se. YBOP is still weighing the options of a defamation per se lawsuit against Ley.

Missing from Kuznia’s NY Times article: the list of harassment, defamation, and threats, which many individuals documented on these 2 pages experience from Ley and Prause and their troupe of flying monkeys.

RealYBOP/Prause continues to tweet the NYTimes article in her propaganda.

As herself, for a change, falsely claiming to have recieved death & rape threats:

However, we have never seen Prause post a screenshot of a verified rape or death threat. The tweet she provided above certainly wasn’t a threat:

As they intended, Prause & Ley’s fabrications incite unstable Twitter trolls to harass Gary Wilson, Alexander Rhodes, and Nofap. A few of Prause’s allies join in here. (Even though nerdykinkycommie was long ago blocked, he joins the thread):

As soon as kinkycommie retweets Wilson’s tweet (the above tweet), Prause joins her friend in the defamation (Wilson’s tweet reads “unavailable” because kinkycommie is blocked).

Prause is claiming that: (1) she is receiving death threats, 2) Wilson is somehow behind these death threats because he is posting libel directed at “us.” As for Wilson posting libel, Prause provides no example, because she is lying and engaging in libel herself. While the posted threat may be legitimate (and that would be terrible), we are given no documentation as to the source. While this may seem harsh, we have documentation of several instances of Prause lying about having received rape threats from specific individuals. In one instance, Dr. Prause called the office of a doctor she had been harassing, telling office workers that threats to her (Prause) had been traced back to that office’s IP address, and must have come from the doctor. Unbeknownst to Prause the doctor hadn’t worked there for over a year. Prause busted in another lie. (See – Overview: Nicole Prause’s fabrications of victim-hood exposed as groundless: she is the perpetrator, not the victim)

Prause has also falsely asserted that she was sexually harassed by Don Hilton, MD and John Adler, MD. (Dr. Hilton was obliged to file a lawsuit in response to Prause defamatory statements in order to defend his professional reputation.)

Prause has falsely stated that officials at Fight the New Drug have told their followers to rape her. Prause has stated that Alexander Rhodes of NoFap and Gary Wilson have made various threats and have physically stalking her. Add these events to the growing list of Prause’s fabricated victimhood.

June, 2019: MDPI (the parent company of the journal Behavioral Sciences) publishes an editorial about Nicole Prause’s unethical behavior surrounding her unsuccessful attempts to have Park et al., 2016 retracted

The paper in question: Is Internet Pornography Causing Sexual Dysfunctions? A Review with Clinical Reports (Park et al., 2016). [As of early 2019, Park et al. has been cited by over 40 other peer-reviewed papers, and is the most viewed paper in the history of the journal Behavioral Sciences].

Back story: This page documents much of Prause’s unethical behavior surrounding Park et al., 2016 – Prause’s efforts to have Behavioral Sciences review paper (Park et al., 2016) retracted – including, lying in emails to MDPI and COPE; using fake names to harass The Reward Foundation (a Scottish charity); threatening Gary Wilson’s publisher and his website manager; inserting false information about Wilson and The Reward Foundation into Wikipedia; harassing numerous individuals who published articles in MDPI journals; mischaracterizing her “review” of Park et al.; hiding the fact she had reviewed Park et al. at a previous journal; being banned from Wikipedia for employing multiple sockpuppets to edit the MDPI page; maliciously reporting US Navy doctors to medical boards; lying to Retraction Watch; using aliases to contact the US Navy; falsely accusing a US Navy doctor of harassment, when she was the perpetrator; and on and on and on. All this because Prause is obsessed with attempting to deny porn-induced sexual dysfunctions.

The MDPI comment on Prause’s behavior:

21 June 2019
Comment on Park, B., et al. Is Internet Pornography Causing Sexual Dysfunctions? A Review with Clinical Reports Behav. Sci. 2016, 6, 17
In August 2017, Behavioral Sciences published the article [1], which includes a case study of three individuals in the US Navy. The paper underwent our usual editorial process, including peer review, and was accepted for publication. Since then, we have received a number of complaints from a single individual claiming that the paper is seriously flawed and calling for withdrawal of the article. In this comment we wish to reiterate that the correct procedures were followed in the handling of the manuscript and to publicly counter some of the claims. The Committee for Publication Ethics (COPE) considered some of these issues and we are grateful for their advice and cooperation. We also wish to thank the authors for their cooperation.
One serious claim leveled against the paper was that the required consent was not sought from the three individuals featured in the case studies presented. According to the instructions for authors posted on the Behavioral Sciences website, informed consent should be obtained for case studies where there is any risk that individuals could be identified. When asked to confirm this point, the authors verified that consent had been obtained for two individuals and that for the third not enough details were shared in the paper to require consent. The editorial office has seen redacted copies of the consent form used and is satisfied with the authors’ explanation.
Another issue was that the academic editor of the article was not aware that he was making a final decision to accept article [1] for publication. Behavioral Sciences uses a standard template to invite editors to make the final decision to accept manuscripts, which was also done in this case. Since the complaint, the original academic editor has informed us that he was not aware that this was his role for the paper. We re-evaluated the peer review process with the (now former) Editor-in-Chief John Coverdale and made the decision that the manuscript should not be removed for this reason. In the published Correction [2], the academic editor information has been amended.
Numerous claims about conflicts of interest of the authors were made in relation to [1]. Only one non-financial conflict of interest was found to be substantiated and the paper has been updated [2].
Consequently, MDPI has updated its instructions for authors to provide more clarity about informed consent issues and to better guide authors in this area. Our requirements and policies have not changed and we continue to follow the guidelines provided by COPE.
We believe that the dispute surrounding this paper arose from a difference of opinion in terms of the treatment of individuals using high levels of pornography, and was not motivated by genuine concerns about the editorial work around the paper [3]. Our view is that the correct way to deal with such a dispute is by presenting arguments and counter-arguments in a peer-reviewed, scientific context where all conflicts of interest from both parties are properly disclosed. Personal criticism does not have a place in this context and attempts to shut down those with opposing views by removing their work from the literature is not the correct approach. We know that the majority of authors and readers approach research in a constructive and engaged way and we wish to advocate this approach for the benefit of the research community as a whole.
References
[1] Park, B.Y.; Wilson, G.; Berger, J.; Christman, M.; Reina, B.; Bishop, F.; Klam, W.P.; Doan, A.P. Is Internet Pornography Causing Sexual Dysfunctions? A Review with Clinical Reports. Sci. 2016, 6, 17.
[2] Park, B.Y. et al.; Correction: Park, B.Y., et al. Is Internet Pornography Causing Sexual Dysfunctions? A Review with Clinical Reports Sci. 2016, 6, 17. Behav. Sci. 2018, 8, 55.
[3] Marcus, A. “Journal corrects, but will not retract, controversial paper on internet porn”. Retraction Watch. Available online: https://retractionwatch.com/2018/06/13/journal-corrects-but-will-not-retract-controversial-paper-on-internet-porn/ (accessed on 13 June 2018) and https://web.archive.org/web/20180913124808/https://retractionwatch.com/2018/06/13/journal-corrects-but-will-not-retract-controversial-paper-on-internet-porn/ (archived on 13 September 2018).

Wilson’s comments on the following sentence:

Only one non-financial conflict of interest was found to be substantiated and the paper has been updated [2].

As I explained in my Retraction Watch comment (which was partially censored by Retraction Watch!), my association with The Reward Foundation was on the original paper, and on an earlier version submitted to The Yale Journal of Biology & Medicine in early 2015. My comment:

What’s not clear in this article is that my (Wilson’s) affiliation with The Reward Foundation was disclosed from the start (see the original PubMed version, published in August, 2016 – https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5039517/). The correction was published for my protection, in an attempt to stop Dr. Prause from continuing to claim that I was being paid by The Reward Foundation as a lobbyist, or just being “paid off.” (She has publicly advanced several baseless theories about my imagined corruption.) In the journal’s correction, only the title of my book (“Your Brain On Porn: Internet Pornography and the Emerging Science of Addiction”) and a clear indication of my unremunerated role at The Reward Foundation were added. Again, this was to prevent further assertions of any possible financial conflict of interest. Corrected version: http://www.mdpi.com/2076-328X/8/6/55/htm

Put simply, the correction was meant to protect me from Prause and her littany of falsehoods surrounding this paper.

June, 2019: MDPI official response to the MDPI Wikipedia page (which has been edited by several Nicole Prause sockpuppets)

Backstory: MDPI is the Swiss parent company of over 100 academic journals, including Behavioral Sciences. Prause is obsessed with MDPI because Behavioral Sciences published two highly cited reviews that Prause despises because they (1) critiqued 3 papers by her, and (2) the two papers lend support to the existence of porn addiction and porn-induced sexual problems. The 2 reviews:

Neuroscience of Internet Pornography Addiction: A Review and Update (Love et al., 2015)
Is Internet Pornography Causing Sexual Dysfunctions? A Review with Clinical Reports (Park et al., 2016)

Not long after Park et al., 2016 was published, Prause went on the warpath against MDPI, Behavioral Sciences, and the authors of Park et al., employing multiple avenues of overt and covert attack (documented on this extensive page – Prause’s efforts to have Behavioral Sciences review paper (Park et al., 2016) retracted ). One avenue of attack was to edit the MDPI Wikipedia page using multiple aliases (sockpuppets), which violates Wikipedia rules. To date we have indentified at least 30 likely Prause sockpuppets.

Let’s begin with Wikipedia user NeuroSex, who had a least 8 other aliases – all of which were banned as Wikipedia sockpuppets of NeuroSex. Neurosex, her sockpuppets, and other Prause sockpuppets have edited Wikipedia, inserting false information about Gary Wilson, Park et al. and MDPI.

For example, NeuroSex inserted information mirroring Prause tweets and taking content directly from Prause’s email exchanges with MDPI (many of which Wilson has seen). NeuroSex claimed to possess private MDPI emails – which they wanted to post to the MDPI Wikipedia page. Here’s what NeuroSex said in her comment. (Note: In her concurrent emails to MDPI, Prause cc’d RetractionWatch, apparently to threaten MDPI with public retaliation.):

I have images that verify each of the claims (e.g., email from the publisher, email from the listed editor, etc.). RetractionWatch and other outlets are considering writing reviews of it as well, but I cannot be sure those will materialize. How is best to provide such evidence that verifies the claims? As embedded image? Written elsewhere with images and linked?

Let’s provide a few examples of the “NeuroSex” edits (lies) related to Wilson and to Park et al., 2016 – followed by Wilson’s comments:

NeuroSex edit #1: Gary Wilson was by <ref>{{cite web|title=paid over 9000 pounds|url=https://www.oscr.org.uk/downloadfile.aspx?id=160223&type=5&charityid=SC044948&arid=236451}}</ref> The Reward Foundation to lobby in the US on behalf of anti-pornography state declarations.

Wilson comment: NeuroSex linked to a redacted document, claiming that Gary Wilson was paid 9,000 pounds by Scottish charity The Reward Foundation. Two days earlier, Prause falsely claimed to journal publisher MDPI (and others) that, based on the charity’s recent public filing (with a name redacted, as is standard), expense reimbursements paid to a charity officer were in fact paid to Wilson. Prause had not checked her facts, and she was mistaken (again). Wilson has never received any money from The Reward Foundation. Prause has repeated this same lie elsewhere.

Three sockpuppets of NeuroSex who edited the MDPI Wikpedia page (links show list of edits for each sockpuppet):

Other likely sockpuppets of NeuroSex (Prause) who have also edited MDPI. (There are probably more.)

Numerous other sockpuppets are listed at the end of this section: April-May, 2019: Two “NeuroSex” sockpuppets (SecondaryEd2020 & Sciencearousal) edit Wikipedia, inserting RealYourBrainOnporn.com links and Prause-like propaganda

On to the MDPI announcement:

Announcements from MDPI 19 June 2019
Response to MDPI Wikipedia Article
Wikipedia is an important source of community-based knowledge and MDPI supports the endeavor to openly disseminate knowledge, which closely matches the goals of MDPI. Unfortunately, some editors of the Wikipedia page about MDPI lack objectivity. This leaves the article heavily biased and uninformative about the majority of MDPI’s activities. Any potential improvements added to the page are quickly removed. We have made a number of attempts to discuss with Wikipedia editors to improve the quality of the article, but without success. Thus, for the time being, we do not recommend Wikipedia as a reliable source of information about MDPI.
For a comprehensive history of MDPI, see https://www.mdpi.com/about/history. In addition, there are third party sources of information about MDPI journals such as http://qoam.eu/journals, and Publons (https://publons.com/journal/?order_by=num_reviews_last_one_year).
Almost three quarters of the Wikipedia article covers controversial topics, mentioning 4 out of over 200,000 published papers, one instance where 10 editorial board members resigned (in 2018 we had over 43,000 Editorial Board Members and Guest Editors), and inclusion on Jeffrey Beall’s list, known as a source biased against open access and from which MDPI was removed (see our response here). While we do not object to these topics being mentioned, the way in which they are presented is misleading.
Responses to some of the topics covered can be found at:
Australian Paradox (Nutrients): https://www.mdpi.com/2072-6643/4/4/258/htm.
Andrulis paper (Life): https://www.mdpi.com/2075-1729/2/1/213/htm.
Editorial board resignation (Nutrients): https://www.mdpi.com/about/announcements/1389.
Comment on Park, B., et al. Is Internet Pornography Causing Sexual Dysfunctions? A Review with Clinical Reports Behav. Sci. 2016, 6, 17: https://www.mdpi.com/about/announcements/1616.

A large parent company posting two official statements related to the unethical behavior by a rogue PhD may be without precedent. Just the tip of the Prause icberg: Nicole Prause’s Malicious Reporting and Malicious Use of Process

Others – July, 2019: Donald Hilton amends defamation lawsuit to include affidavits from 9 other victims of Prause, Texas Board of Medical Examiners complaint, incorrectly accusing Dr. Hilton of falsifying his credentials.

Don Hilton’s initial 17-page complaint and 6 accompanying exhbits were filed on May 8, 2019 and can be found in this section: May, 2019: Nicole Prause triggers defamation per se lawsuit with sexual harassment claim against Donald Hilton, MD.

On July 24, 2019 Don Hilton amended his lawsuit to include (The court filings are here)

Affidavits from 9 other victims of Prause,
Prause’s malicious complaint to the Texas Board of Medical Examiners containing false and defamatory statements,
Prause’s accusations with two different professional journals in which Dr. Hilton has published, incorrectly accusing Dr. Hilton of falsifying and exaggerating his credentials.

PDF’s of the amendments to Hilton’s lawsuit:

UPDATE: Nicole R. Prause filed a motion to dismiss Donald Hilton’s defamation lawsuit against her. Prause’s motion contained false statements and myriad unsupported allegations. Don Hilton responded with a 21-page opposition to dismiss and 57 pages of exhibits:

Downloadable PDF – August 9, 2019: Don Hilton’s 21-page opposition to Nicole Prause’s motion to dismiss defamation per se case.
Downloadable PDF – August 9, 2019: 57-pages of exhibits accompanying Don Hilton’s 21-page opposition to Prause’s motion to dismiss

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

This section contains screenshots of new documents

Below are screenshots of “1 – Motion for leave to file amended complaint”

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Screenshots of 3 – Don Hilton’s new amended complaint, that differ substantially from Hilton’s initial complaint:

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Screenshot of “5 – Exhibit – Notice of malicious Texas Medical Board complaint by Nicole Prause“

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Screenshot of “6 – Exhibit – Email from PNAS to Hilton (Prause falsely claiming Hilton faked credentials on a journal article)”

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Screenshots of “7 – Exhibit – University of Texas confirming that Dr. Hilton is a faculty member”

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Screenshots of “10 – Old exhibit – Prause tweets confirming she attended AVN”

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Just the tip of the Prause icberg: Nicole Prause’s Malicious Reporting and Malicious Use of Process.

The 9 affadivits are located in subsequent sections. For an extensive expsose’ on Prause’s court filings related to Wilson, see: Nicole Prause & David Ley commit perjury in defamation lawsuit (September, 2019)

July, 2019: John Adler, MD affidavit: Donald Hilton defamation lawsuit against Nicole R Prause

PDF of John Adler’s 61-page affidavit: John Adler, MD, founder & senior editor of Cureus (affidavit #1)

We provide screenshots of only the narrative portion of the affidavit (omitting the exhibit portion which are in the full PDF).

For the rest of the affidavit see – John Adler, MD, founder & senior editor of Cureus (affidavit #1). Sections of the Prause pages related to John Adler:

July, 2019: Gary Wilson affidavit: Donald Hilton defamation lawsuit against Nicole R Prause & Liberos LLC

PDF of Gary Wilson’s 47-page affidavit (it could have been a 470-page affidavit): Gary Wilson of YBOP (affidavit #2)

We provide screenshots of only the narrative portion of the affidavit (omitting the exhibit portions which are in the full PDF).

You can see the rest of the affidavit here – Gary Wilson of YBOP (affidavit #2). These pagaes conatin hundreds more of documented incidents involving Prause harassing, defaming or cyberstalking Wilson:

Update: September, 2019: Nicole Prause & David Ley commit perjury in Don Hilton defamation lawsuit.

Update (August, 2020): Serial defamer & harasser Nicole Pause loses lawsuits to Gary Wilson; court rulings expose Prause the perpetrator, not the victim. In August of 2020 court rulings fully exposed Nicole Prause as the perpetrator, not the victim. In March of 2020, Prause sought a groundless temporary restraining order (TRO) against me using fabricated “evidence” and her usual lies (falsely accusing me of stalking). In Prause’s request for the restraining order she perjured herself, saying I posted her address on YBOP and Twitter (perjury is nothing new with Prause). I filed an anti-SLAPP lawsuit against Prause for misusing the legal system (TRO) to silence and harass me. On August 6, the Los Angeles County Superior Court ruled that Prause’s attempt to obtain a restraining order against me constituted a frivolous and illegal “strategic lawsuit against public participation” (commonly called a “SLAPP suit”). Prause lied throughout her fraudulent TRO, providing zero verifiable evidence to support her outlandish claims that I stalked or harassed her. In essence, the Court found that Prause abused the restraining order process to bully me into silence and undercut his rights to free speech. By law, the SLAPP ruling obligates Prause to pay my attorney fees.

Update (January, 2021): Prause filed a second frivolous legal proceeding against me in December, 2020 for alleged defamation. At a hearing on January 22, 2021 an Oregon court ruled in my favor and charged Prause with costs and an additional penalty. This failed effort was one of a dozen lawsuits Prause publicly threatened and/or filed in the previous months. After years of malicious reporting, she has escalated to threats of actual lawsuits to try to silence those who reveal her close ties to the porn industry and her malicious conduct, or who have made sworn statements in the 3 defamation suits currently active against her.

July, 2019: Alexander Rhodes affidavit: Donald Hilton defamation lawsuit against Nicole R Prause & Liberos LLC.

PDF of Alexander Rhodes’s 67-page affidavit: Alexander Rhodes of NoFap (affidavit #3).

We provide screenshots of only the narrative portion of the Rhodes affidavit (omitting the exhibit portions which are in the full PDF).

You can see the rest of the affidavit here: Alexander Rhodes of NoFap (affidavit #3)

Sections related to Prause’s long history of harrasing, defaming and cyberstalking Alexander Rhodes of NoFap:

Update: Prause defames Rhodes in her motion to dismiss in Hilton’s suit (her motion was denied). See: September, 2019: Nicole Prause & David Ley commit perjury in Don Hilton defamation lawsuit.

Update: October, 23, 2019: NoFap founder Alexander Rhodes defamation lawsuit against Nicole Prause / Liberos

Update (November, 21, 2019): Scathing expose’ of serial false accuser, harasser, cyber-stalker Nicole Prause – Alex Rhodes of Porn Addiction Support Group ‘No Fap’ Sues Obsessed Pro-Porn Sexologist for Defamation (By Megan Fox, of PJ Media)

July, 2019: Staci Sprout, LICSW affidavit: Donald Hilton defamation lawsuit against Nicole R Prause & Liberos LLC.

PDF of Staci Sprout’s 21-page affidavit: Staci Sprout, LICSW, CSAT (affidavit #4).

We provide screenshots of only the narrative portion of the affidavit (omitting the exhibit portions which are in the full PDF).

For more see the 21-page affidavit: Staci Sprout, LICSW, CSAT (affidavit #4).

Sections related to the Staci Sprout affidavit:

July, 2019: Linda Hatch, PhD affidavit: Donald Hilton defamation lawsuit against Nicole R Prause & Liberos LLC.

PDF of Linda Hatch’s 3-page affidavit: Linda Hatch, PhD (affidavit #5)

Prause also sent Linda Hatch a malicious cease & desist letter. Documented here: Ongoing – Prause silencing people with fake “no contact” demands and spurious cease & desist letters

July, 2019: Bradley Green, PhD affidavit: Donald Hilton defamation lawsuit against Nicole R Prause & Liberos LLC.

PDF of Bradley Green PhD 39-page affidavit: Bradley Green, PhD (affidavit #6)

We provide screenshots of only the narrative portion of the affidavit (omitting the exhibit portions which are in the full PDF).

For more see the 39-page affidavit: Bradley Green, PhD (affidavit #6)

July, 2019: Stefanie Carnes, PhD affidavit: Donald Hilton defamation lawsuit against Nicole R Prause & Liberos LLC.

PDF of Stefanie Carnes 12-page affidavit: Stephanie Carnes, PhD (affidavit #7)

We provide screenshots of only the narrative portion of the affidavit (omitting the exhibit portions which are in the full PDF).

For more see the 12-page affidavit: Stephanie Carnes, PhD (affidavit #7)

Sections related to the Stefanie Carnes affidavit:

July, 2019: Geoff Goodman, PhD affidavit: Donald Hilton defamation lawsuit against Nicole R Prause & Liberos LLC.

PDF of Geoff Goodman, PhD 3-page affidavit: Geoff Goodman, PhD (affidavit #8)

PDF of Geoff Goodman’s 3-page affidavit: Geoff Goodman, PhD (affidavit #8)

In addition to trying to destroy Goodman’s career, Prause attacked Goodman in the comments section under her and David Ley’s disgusting Psychology Today blog post:

As usual, Prause is lying: Geoff Goodman is still on the AASECT listserve, posting whenever he pleases. His university ultimately dismissed Prause’s malicious attempt to punish Goodman for challenging one of Prause’s minions.

July, 2019: Laila Haddad affidavit: Donald Hilton defamation lawsuit against Nicole R Prause & Liberos LLC.

PDF of Laila’s 6-page affidavit: Laila Haddad of Exodus Cry (affidavit #9)

We provide screenshots of only the narrative portion of the affidavit (omitting the exhibit portions which are in the full PDF).

For the remainder of the 6-page affidavit, see: Laila Haddad of Exodus Cry (affidavit #9)

Section related to this affidavit: February, 2019: Prause falsely accuses Exodus Cry of fraud. Asks twitter followers to report the non-profit to the Missouri attorney general (for spurious reasons), Appears to have edited the CEO’s Wikipedia page.

Updates:

Prause’s long history of intentionally mischaracterizing porn related research (including her own)

Over the last few years Nicole Prause has not only mischaracterized the current state of porn research, she has misrepresented the findings of her own studies. What’s going on here? By her own admission, Prause rejects the concept of porn addiction. For example, a quote from this Martin Daubney article about sex/porn addictions:

Dr Nicole Prause, principal investigator at the Sexual Psychophysiology and Affective Neuroscience (Span) Laboratory in Los Angeles, calls herself a “professional debunker” of sex addiction.

In addition, Nicole Prause’s former Twitter slogan suggests she may lack the impartiality required for scientific research:

“Studying why people choose to engage in sexual behaviors without invoking addiction nonsense”

We will start with Prause’s consistent claims to the media that no studies have been published that support either porn addiction or porn-induced sexual problems. Prause said this in the Congressional Quarterly Researcher (2016, October 21):

Moreover, says Nicole Prause, a neuroscientist and CEO of Liberos, a company that researches sexuality in Los Angeles, there is no proof that pornography is causing a rising rate of erectile dysfunction nor that it is addictive.

The facts:

Erectile dysfunction rates in men under 40 have risen up to 1000% in the last few years, and over 40 studies link porn use and porn addiction to sexual problems. The first 7 studies in that list demonstrate causation as men eliminated porn use and healed chronic sexual dysfunctions. List of articles, interviews and videos involving over 160 experts who recognize and treat porn-induced sexual dysfunctions.
There are now 55 neurological studies supporting the porn addiction model. (No studies falsify the porn addiction model)
There are now 29 reviews of the literature & commentaries by some of the top neuroscientists in the world, which lend support to the porn addiction model.
There are over 55 studies reporting findings consistent with escalation of porn use (tolerance), habituation to porn, and even withdrawal symptoms.
There are over 75 studies linking porn use to less sexual and relationship satisfaction.
There are now over over 85 studies linking porn use to poorer mental-emotional health & poorer cognitive outcomes.

This Salt Lake Tribune Op-Ed (debunking an earlier Op-Ed) contained 100 peer-reviewed studies found on these two lists: 1, 2. Within a few days Nicole Prause and 3 therapists appeared on a Mormon Matters podcast to offer a “rebuttal” to the Salt Lake Tribune Op-Ed. When the show’s host asked Prause to address the many studies cited in support of the Op-Ed, Prause said the following:

“Not one of the studies the cited asked about the positive effects of sex films”

False. Most of these 120 studies simply correlated porn use with sexual or relationship satisfaction. A few even reported porn use sexual satisfaction. She also said,

“They were probably not peer-reviewed.”

False. All were peer-reviewed.

“A lot of the studies they cited were in predatory journals.”

False. None were in predatory journals. Many of the papers were authored by some of the top neuroscientists at Yale University, Cambridge University, University of Duisburg-Essen, and the Max Planck Institute.

“So what they are citing is not respected by any scientist.”

False. No scientist has come forth to officially critique any of the papers in those lists of peer-reviewed literature.

It’s telling that Prause failed to provide the name of a single study from those lists that was not peer-reviewed, or that was published in a predatory journal. Once again Prause makes outlandish claims, yet never provides an iota of evidence to support them. It seems as though Dr. Prause is unaware of the Americal Psychological Association’s “General Principles,” one of which is “Integrity.” Excerpt:

Psychologists do notsteal, cheat orengage in fraud, subterfuge or intentional misrepresentation of fact.

Prause has also misrepresented the findings of her own studies to the media (which is the primary reason this website has been obliged to critique Prause’s studies/claims). As examples, we examine a few of the claims surrounding Prause’s three most publicized papers, which she repeatedly claims debunk either porn addiction or porn-induced erectile dysfunction.

1) Steele et al., 2013:

Prause, as the Steele et al. spoesperson, claimed that her subjects’ brain response differered from other types of addicts (cocaine was the example). A few interviews of Prause:

Reporter: “They were shown various erotic images, and their brain activity monitored.”
Prause: “If you think sexual problems are an addiction, we would have expected to see an enhanced response, maybe, to those sexual images. If you think it’s a problem of impulsivity, we would have expected to see decreased responses to those sexual images. And the fact that we didn’t see any of those relationships suggests that there’s not great support for looking at these problem sexual behaviors as an addiction.”

Psychology Today interview:

What was the purpose of the study?
Prause: Our study tested whether people who report such problems look like other addicts from their brain responses to sexual images. Studies of drug addictions, such as cocaine, have shown a consistent pattern of brain response to images of the drug of abuse, so we predicted that we should see the same pattern in people who report problems with sex if it was, in fact, an addiction.
Does this prove sex addiction is a myth?
Prause: If our study is replicated, these findings would represent a major challenge to existing theories of sex “addiction.” The reason these findings present a challenge is that it shows their brains did not respond to the images like other addicts to their drug of addiction.

The above claims that subjects’ “brains did not respond like other addicts” is without support, and is nowhere to be found in the actual study. It’s only found in Prause’s interviews. In Steele et al., 2013, the subjects had higher EEG (P300) readings when viewing sexual images, which is exactly what occurs when addicts view images related to their addiction (as in this study on cocaine addicts). Commenting under the Psychology Today interview of Prause, senior psychology professor emeritus John A. Johnson said:

“My mind still boggles at the Prause claim that her subjects’ brains did not respond to sexual images like drug addicts’ brains respond to their drug, given that she reports higher P300 readings for the sexual images. Just like addicts who show P300 spikes when presented with their drug of choice. How could she draw a conclusion that is the opposite of the actual results?

Dr. Johnson, who has no opinion on sex addiction, commented a second time under the Prause interview:

Mustanski asks, “What was the purpose of the study?” And Prause replies, “Our study tested whether people who report such problems [problems with regulating their viewing of online erotica] look like other addicts from their brain responses to sexual images.”
(Said Johnson) But the study did not compare brain recordings from persons having problems regulating their viewing of online erotica to brain recordings from drug addicts and brain recordings from a non-addict control group, which would have been the obvious way to see if brain responses from the troubled group look more like the brain responses of addicts or non-addicts…

Eight peer-reviewed papers have since exposed the truth about the lack of support for Prause’s claims about her team’s work: Peer-reviewed critiques of Steele et al., 2013

For much more see this “debate” between Nicole Prause (as anonymous) and John A. Johnson in the comments section below Johnson’s 2013 Psychology Today article about the sex addiction controversy

2) Prause et al., 2015:

In the first unsupported claim Nicole Prause boldly publicized on her SPAN lab website, proclaiming that her solitary study “debunks porn addiction”:

What researcher would ever claim to debunk an entire field of research and to refute all previous studies with a single EEG study?

Nicole Prause also claimed her study contained 122 subjects (N). In reality, the study had only 55 “compulsive porn users.” The other 67 participants were controls.

In a third dubious claim, Prause, et al. stated in both the abstract and in the body of the study:

“These are the first functional physiological data of persons reporting VSS regulation problems.”

This is clearly not the case, as the Cambridge fMRI study was published nearly a year earlier.

Nine peer-reviewed papers disagree with Nicole Prause’s interpretation of her study: Peer-reviewed critiques of Prause et al., 2015. The author of the fourth critique, neuroscientist Mateusz Gola, summed up it up nicely:

“Unfortunately the bold title of Prause et al. (2015) article has already had an impact on mass media, thus popularizing a scientifically unjustified conclusion.”

Finally, for Prause’s claims of falsification and the resulting dubious headlines to be legitimate, all of Prause’s 55 subjects would have to have been actual porn addicts. Not some, not most, but every single subject. All signs point to a good number of the 55 Prause subjects being non-addicts.

The subjects were recruited from Pocatello Idaho via online advertisements requesting people who were “experiencing problems regulating their viewing of sexual images”. Pocatello Idaho is over 50% Mormon, so many of the subjects may feel that any amount of porn use is a serious problem. In a serious methodological flaw, none of the subjects were screened for porn addiction.

Make no mistake, neither Steele et al., 2013 nor Prause et al., 2015 described these 55 subjects as porn addicts or compulsive porn users. The subjects only admitted to feeling “distressed” by their porn use. Confirming the mixed nature of her subjects, Prause admitted in 2013 interview that some of the 55 subjects experienced only minor problems (which means they were not porn addicts):

“This study only included people who reported problems, ranging from relatively minor to overwhelming problems, controlling their viewing of visual sexual stimuli.”

Key point: How can you debunk the porn addiction model if many of your “porn addicts” are not really porn addicts?

3) Prause & Pfaus 2015:

This paper wasn’t a study at all. Instead, Prause claimed to have gathered data from four of her earlier studies, none of which had anything to do with erectile dysfunction. None of the data from the Prause & Pfaus (2015) paper matched the four earlier studies. The discrepancies were not small and have not been explained. A comment by researcher Richard A. Isenberg MD, published in Sexual Medicine Open Access, points out several (but not all) of the discrepancies, errors, and unsupported claims (a lay critique describes more discrepancies). Prause made a number of false or unsupported claims associated with this paper:

Many of the articles about this study claimed that porn use lead to better erections, yet that’s not what the paper found. In recorded interviews both Prause and Pfaus falsely claimed that they had measured erections in the lab, and the men who used porn had better erections. The Jim Pfaus TV interview Jim Pfaus he states:

“We looked at the correlation of their ability to get an erection in the lab,”

“We found a liner correlation with the amount of porn they viewed at home, and the latencies which for example they get an erection is faster.”

In this radio interview Nicole Prause claimed that erections were measured in the lab. The exact quote from the show:

“The more people watch erotica at home they have stronger erectile responses in the lab, not reduced.”

Yet this paper did not assess erection quality in the lab nor “speed of erections.” The paper only claimed to have asked guys to rate their “arousal” after briefly viewing porn (and it’s not clear from the underlying papers that even that actually happened in the case of all subjects). In any case, an excerpt from the paper itself admitted that:

“No physiological genital response data were included to support men’s self-reported experience.”

In a second unsupported claim, lead author Prause tweeted several times about the study, letting the world know that 280 subjects were involved, and that they had “no problems at home.” However, the four underlying studies contained only 234 male subjects, so “280” is way off.

A third unsuported claim: Dr. Isenberg wondered, how is it possible for Prause & Pfaus to have compared different subjects’ arousal levels when three different types of sexual stimuli were used in the 4 underlying studies? Two studies used a 3-minute film, one study used a 20-second film, and one study used still images. It’s well established that films are far more arousing than photos, so no legitimate research would group these subjects together to make claims about their responses. What’s shocking is that in this paper Prause & Pfaus unaccountably claim that all 4 studies used sexual films:

“The VSS presented in the studies were all films.”

This statement is absoluely false and clearly shown in Prause’s own underlying studies.

A fourth unsupported claim: Dr. Isenberg also asked how Prause & Pfaus compared different subjects’ arousal levels when only 1 of the 4 underlying studies used a 1 to 9 scale. One used a 0 to 7 scale, one used a 1 to 7 scale, and one study did not report sexual arousal ratings. Once again Prause & Pfaus inexplicably claim that:

“men were asked to indicate their level of “sexual arousal” ranging from 1 “not at all” to 9 “extremely.”

This too is false as the underlying papers prove.

In summary, all the Prause-generated headlines about porn improving erections or arousal, or anything else, are completely unsupported. Claims in the Prause & Pfaus paper are falsified by Prause’s own studies underlying the paper.

Why the extreme bias and libelous attacks on anyone who suggests that internet porn might cause problems in some users?

It’s important to note that UCLA chose not to renew Prause’s contract (around January, 2015), and she has not been employed by an academic institution ever since.

After leaving UCLA, Prause became quite cozy with the pornography industry, as can be seen from this image of her (far right) on the red carpet of the X-Rated Critics Organization (XRCO) awards ceremony. (According to Wikipedia the XRCO Awards are given by the American X-Rated Critics Organization annually to people working in adult entertainment and it is the only adult industry awards show reserved exclusively for industry members.^[1]).

Her personal relationships with porn performers and producers are well documented. As is Prause’s direct support for porn industry (FSC, AVN, XBIZ, xHamster, PornHub). Shockingly, in 2015 the Free Speech Coalition offers Prause assistance – she accepts and immediately attacks Proposition 60 (condoms in porn).

It also appears that Prause may have obtained porn performers as subjects through another porn industry interest group, the Free Speech Coalition. The FSC-obtained subjects were allegedly used in her hired-gun study on the heavily tainted and very commercial “Orgasmic Meditation” scheme (now being investigated by the FBI), where Prause is serving as a principal researcher. Prause claims that her upcoming Orgasmic Meditation study (with subjects allegedly provided by the FSC) will debunk porn addiction! For much more documentation, see: Is Nicole Prause Influenced by the Porn Industry?

More recently she served as a “for-commercial-hire” (paid) researcher promoting Lovehoney’s rabbit vibrators. From the article, “The research was carried out for the launch of a new range of Happy Rabbit vibrators by the British sex toy retailer Lovehoney.” Is this the same brand of vibrator that women are complaining of because they reduce the ability to orgasm easily during partnered sex?