Featured

References for 10 facts about RealYBOP


  1. Pornhub was the first account to retweet RealYBOP’s maiden tweet (demonstrating collaboration).

Pornhub later deleted its retweet. Hartmann is a member of RealYBOP.


  1. RealYBOP “experts” work with porn industry giant xHamster to promote its sites (David Ley and others.) Ley also defends Pornhub on Twitter.


  1. RealYBOP regularly retweets XBIZ, FSC, AVN, porn industry insiders.

Next, RealYBOP attempts to augment the baseless smear campaign that anyone who points out the risks of porn use is antisemitic, despite that fact that many of the most vocal, and effective, critics of the effects of today’s porn are Jewish.

In response to discovery of rape victims on Mindgeek’s Pornhub site, RealYBOP defends Mindgeek:


  1. RealYBOP defends Pornhub while defaming and disparaging Laila Mickelwait (who started a petition to hold Pornhub accountable for hosting child porn and sex trafficking videos).


  1. RealYBOP “experts” attend exclusive porn industry awards (XRCO). Prause is in the pink dress on the right.


  1. In its first year, RealYBOP posted over 1,000 tweets disparaging or defaming anyone who says porn might cause problems.

Verified journalists may contact us for the massive collection.

  1. RealYBOP has never tweeted a single study reporting negative effects of porn (even though the weight of the evidence finds negative effects).

A sampling of RealYBOP views:

  1. RealYBOP regularly misrepresents studies and the state of the research.


  1. RealYBOP is embroiled in two federal defamation lawsuits (and numerous other legal actions).

  1. ScramNews was forced to apologize and pay damages to NoFap for printing lies from a RealYBOP “expert”.

Gary Wilson (Your Brain on Porn) Wins Legal Victory Against Sexologist Nicole Prause’s Efforts to Silence Him

Vocal porn researcher’s attempted restraining order denied as frivolous; must pay substantial attorney fees in a SLAPP ruling.

ASHLAND, OREGON: August 16, 2020: Best-selling author and public health advocate Gary Wilson has won a legal victory against sexology researcher and pornography proponent Nicole Prause. On August 6, the Los Angeles County Superior Court ruled that Prause’s attempt to obtain a restraining order against Wilson constituted a frivolous and illegal “strategic lawsuit against public participation” (commonly called a “SLAPP suit”). In essence, the Court found that Prause abused the restraining order process to bully Wilson into silence and undercut his rights to free speech. By law, the SLAPP ruling obligates Prause to pay Wilson’s attorney fees.

Wilson is the author of the best selling book Your Brain On Porn: Internet Pornography and the Emerging Science of Addictionpresenter of the immensely popular TEDx talk “The Great Porn Experiment,” (13+ million views) and host of the website www.YourBrainOnPorn.com, a clearinghouse for the latest research, media, and self-reports on pornography’s effects and harms. Wilson has long critiqued Prause’s published research and public statements about pornography use.

“It is ironic that the porn industry cloaks itself in First Amendment protections while porn proponents like Nicole Prause attempt to limit and silence criticism about the well-documented risks of porn’s harm to its users and to the public,” Wilson said after the Court ruling. “This is another important victory over the defamation and harassment endured by advocates who dare to speak publicly about porn’s harms.“

The legal victory comes on the heels of a complaint against UK-based SCRAM Media for publishing a story falsely claiming that Prause had received “death threats” as the consequence of a crowdfunding campaign by NoFap host, Alex Rhodes. According to a UK press release, the SCRAM story falsely stated that NoFap and Rhodes affiliated themselves with right-wing extremists (including anti-Semites); incited extremists to harass Prause; conducted a crowdfund that led to Prause being stalked; and filed a frivolous lawsuit in US Federal Court in order to stymie Prause’s academic research. When presented with evidence disproving those claims, SCRAM retracted the article, paid Rhodes substantial damages and legal costs, and apologized publicly, before shutting down entirely.

Prause is being sued in two unrelated federal civil lawsuits accusing her of making knowingly false and damaging statements about people who have raised concerns about internet porn: 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; and Alexander Rhodes v. Nicole Prause, et al., United States District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania, Case No. 2:19-cv-01366. In those cases, the plaintiffs allege Prause made untrue, defamatory statements accusing them of stalking, sexual harassment, and antisemitism, and claiming they were under investigation by law enforcement and professional licensing bodies. In each case, numerous men and women have come forward with sworn statements that Prause has also targeted them.

###

For media enquiries, please contact ‘Press’ at Your Brain On Porn

DOWNLOAD press release

DOWNLOAD court order

PHONE: 541-488-3830

EMAIL: contact@yourbrainonporn.com

IMAGE: Hi-rez image of Gary B. Wilson

Stripchat To Hold Live Cam Therapy Sessions Featuring Sex Doctors

Original Article Link

Robert Neuwave
July 31, 2019

Starting August 1, members of the Sexual Health Alliance will appear on live cam to discuss issues like addiction, infidelity, and relationship conflicts with cam users

Stripchat To Hold Live Cam Therapy Sessions Featuring Sex Doctors

CYPRUS—Leading camsite Stripchat, in partnership with the Sexual Health Alliance, will be bringing clinical psychologists, sex researchers and relationship therapists onto its global cam platform to answer viewers’ questions (whether they’re subscribers or not) about sex addiction and online infidelity. The initiative will kick off Thursday, August 1, with an hour-long cam session with Dr. David Ley.

“Cam users are passionate about cams, but the outside world doesn’t always accept that,” stated Max Bennet, Vice President of New Media at Stripchat. “Cam fans are more likely than other adult fans to struggle with shame and anxiety about their desires. This is a chance for them to get past some of the myths and stigma around porn, and talk to an expert about what science actually says.”

recent study by Stripchat showed that:

* 42% of all cam users have experienced anxiety about their cam habits, with 11% reporting frequent or constant anxiety.

* 31% of married cam users said cam watching had caused conflicts in their relationship.

* 24% of married cam users said they had fallen in love with a cam performer

* Women and the very religious were the most likely to spend excessively on cams—over $1K a month—and to feel shame about it

As part of the campaign, Stripchat solicited questions from its users that they would like a doctor to answer. The questions ranged from fears about sex addiction to worries about mental health.

Stripchat has partnered with the Sexual Health Alliance to help cam users better understand the science behind cam and porn use. SHA Advisory Board member Dr. David Ley will appear on cam on August 1 to discuss the latest research on the origins of sexual shame, online infidelity and sex addiction.

“Webcam users have been left out of most research and therapy,” said Dr. Ley. “Non-shaming support and education is nonexistent. This needs to change, and this is how it starts.”

“Sex Addiction: Myths and Facts” will take place on Stripchat on Thursday ,August 1, 2019 at 5 PM ET/2 PM PT.

Users must be logged in in order to ask questions; however, no membership to Stripchat is needed to view the session. Survey data and other information about the initiative are available.

“Prominent Pornography Researcher Frames Defamation Claims As Sexual Harassment, Prompting a Defamation Suit by Her Target”

An academic debate turns into professional and legal accusations.

Original Article Link

Eugene Volokh
7.3.2019

Jacob Sullum (Reason) reports:

For years neurosurgeon Donald Hilton and neuroscientist Nicole Prause have been clashing on the pros and cons of pornography…. Now the two intellectual combatants are facing off in a bizarre defamation case featuring dueling claims that each is trying to destroy the other’s reputation.

On April 16, Prause emailed the University of Texas Health Science Center at San Antonio (UTHSCSA), where Hilton is an adjunct associate professor, to complain that she was “being openly sexually harassed by your faculty member Dr. Donald Hilton.” Specifically, she said, Hilton “publicly claims that I personally appear in pornographic films, attend the Adult Video Network awards, and molest children in my laboratory, because I trained at The Kinsey Institute.” She added that all those claims were “demonstrably false.” …

A U.T. spokesperson told the San Antonio Express News the university has no authority to investigate the matter, since neither Hilton nor Prause is an employee. Nor was that the only puzzling aspect of Prause’s complaint, which framed what are essentially defamation claims as sexual harassment….

In the defamation lawsuit that Hilton filed last week in response to Prause’s complaint, he says he has met her in person only once, at a 2009 conference where “nothing inappropriate was said or done.” Since then, he says, he and Prause “have not had any personal communications or interactions.” Hilton says he “has never flirted with Defendant Prause, made any sexual advancements towards her, or committed any other type of sexual misconduct towards her” or anyone else. He argues that her complaint against him is an attempt to discredit an intellectual opponent by making baseless charges—a tactic he says she has used against other critics of pornography.

Furthermore, Hilton denies claiming that Prause has appeared in pornographic films or that she is implicated in child molestation. He says she has attended the Adult Video Network awards, citing a 2018 Twitter post in which she said, “I think Jeanne’s story I heard at AVN was amazing.” …

There’s more in Sullum’s post.

‘No Fap’ Porn Addiction Support Group Founder Sues Obsessed Pro-Porn Sexologist for Defamation

Original Article Link

Megan Fox
Nov 21, 2019

Alex Rhodes is an interesting guy. At the age of 11, he says he started a years-long pornography addiction that turned his life upside down. When he decided to do something about it, he found a community of people online who had the same problems. He started his company, No Fap, in 2011 as a community forum for people to discuss the effects of excessive porn use, compulsive sexual behavior, and recovery. “Fap” is a slang term for masturbation. Rhodes’ road to recovery began with stopping masturbation and avoiding pornography.

The community he created grew to huge numbers of people from all walks of life who benefitted from No Fap’s encouragement. The website says, “we’re here to help you quit porn, improve your relationships, and reach your sexual health goals.” Rhodes says he isn’t in favor of censoring pornography or banning it in any way, but he wanted a community where people affected negatively by it could support one another in breaking their addiction to it. No Fap is not religiously based, as Rhodes is not a person of any faith, which makes his site and mission even more dangerous to the porn industry because he cannot be smeared as a religious zealot.

While porn addiction is not listed on the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, it is a real problem that many struggle with. According to Psych Guides, “porn addiction, which is a subset of sex addiction, can refer to a range of behaviors that are done in excess and negatively impact one’s life.”

There are mountains of information available about the negative impact pornography use is having on children, including a rise in sex crimes as reported in the UK, where “figures from 30 [sources] show reports of sexual offences by children aged 10 and under have more than doubled from 204 in 2013-14 to 456 in 2016-17. Experts in the UK point to the rise in pornography access by minors as a cause.

Pornography addictions are also a leading cause of the break-up of marriages and relationships. Psychology Today reported that 500,000 marriages that end every year name porn addiction as the reason.

With that in mind, an organization like No Fap seems like it would be a non-controversial solution for those who choose it to redirect their lives in a more positive direction. But some people are not fans. Sexologists and porn industry people hate Alex Rhodes with a passion they usually reserve for their sex toys.

Rhodes has filed a lawsuit for defamation against Kinsey Institute graduate Nicole Prause, a scientist who studies sex. Rhodes believes that Prause targeted him to destroy his business and smear his name. Sexologists like Prause have very strange ideas about human sexuality. On her Twitter feed, Prause laments the inability to study the sexuality of minors without being called a pedophile.

This is not surprising coming from a person who studied at the Kinsey Institute. Alfred Kinsey was a monster. His sexual experiments on children should have put him behind bars. He published research that involved at least 188 children and toddlers who were sexually manipulated by pedophiles known to Kinsey to induce orgasm and their orgasms were timed and recorded for the study. His research was determined fraudulent and criminal, but the research is still used by people like Prause and her ilk. There is a documentary available on YouTube called “The Children of Table 34” about the abuse the children suffered because of Kinsey. Kinsey did more to normalize pedophilia than anyone before or after him and yet there are people who consider themselves distinguished to graduate from a school bearing his name. It is clear that Prause sees no issue with involving children in studies about sexuality.

“If you talk about youth sexuality, people will say you are advocating showing porn to kids,” she wrote. “It’s happened to me and many of my colleagues. It’s vicious, defamatory, and horrifying. This is why there are few studies of youth sexuality. Pure intimidation.”

I reached out to Prause and asked her to explain how she would study “youth sexuality” without breaking current laws about corrupting minors and violating the age of consent and received no response. How would adult scientists study the sexuality of minors when minors can’t consent to sexual activity? How does that kind of research work? It’s also interesting that the sexologists moaning about the lack of access to minors for sex research are clearly ignorant of how repulsive they appear to normal people who never think about children having sex.

Prause’s behavior online toward anti-porn organizations and Rhodes is well-documented and truly bizarre. Your Brain on Porn has compiled extensive screengrabs of her online behavior that includes harassment of Ted Talk speakers who talk about porn addiction and porn harm. It seems that Prause’s main beef with the porn addiction help community is that she believes porn is good for people and not addictive. This belief has apparently led her on a crusade to discredit anyone who disagrees with her.

Prause does not like to be connected to the porn industry and claims she is fully separate and a scientist. But she attends porn industry events and is photographed with porn stars and executives and she lobbies publicly with porn industry organizations to block legislation they don’t like. That’s her in the pink on the far right.

California Proposition 60 was legislation to require condoms in porn productions in order to limit the spread of HIV. Prause vociferously opposed this legislation along with the major porn industry lobbyists. She can be seen on Twitter regularly communicating with and defending the porn industry and sex workers.

Rhodes’s lawsuit claims that Prause accused him of being “a stalker, misogynist, serial harasser, promoter of violence against women, cyberstalker, subject to restraining/no-contact orders affiliated with an extremist [h]ate group and threatens rape.” There is evidence of at least one of those things being a demonstrable lie.

After Prause posted on Twitter that she had made an FBI complaint about Rhodes, he sought the report through the Freedom of Information Act. What he got confirmed that she had made it up.

“Dear Mr. Rhodes,” read the letter from the FBI in response to FOIA. The FBI has completed its search for records responsive to your request…We were unable to identify any main file request and; therefore your request is being administratively closed.”

Despite this evidence that Prause never filed any such report with the FBI, she persists in repeating the claim publicly, which Rhodes’s lawsuit claims is damaging to his reputation. Rhodes isn’t the only person she tries to smear with bogus police reports. Prause also went after Gary Wilson, a physiology teacher with a particular interest in the latest neuroscience discoveries, who founded Your Brain and Porn. Prause accuses Wilson regularly of stalking and having multiple police reports for harassing her. Wilson says none of it is true and he has the documentation to back it up. Wilson posted on his website:

While Prause continues to falsely claim she is “the victim,” it is Prause who initiated all contact and harassment towards the individuals and organizations listed on this page. No one on this list has harassed Nicole Prause. Her fabricated claims about being a victim of “stalking” or misogyny from “anti-porn activists” lack one iota of documentation. All the evidence she provides is self-generated: a single info-graphic, a few emails from her to others describing harassment, and five spurious cease and desist letters containing false allegations. You will also see evidence of a number of formal complaints Prause has filed with various regulatory agencies – which have been summarily dismissed or investigated and dismissed. She seems to file these bogus complaints so she can then go on to claim her targets are all “under investigation.”

Perhaps most illustrative of Prause’s character in this saga is her charge that Rhodes is a Nazi and white-supremacist, as detailed in the lawsuit. This should not surprise anyone who has been paying attention since 2016. The minute an SJW disagrees with someone, that person becomes a Nazi. Rhodes’s crime? He allowed political commentator Gavin McInnes to interview him while he was still working for Vice. And since Prause found out that Rhodes spoke to McInnes one time and didn’t throw a drink in his face, she has been accusing him of supporting the Proud Boys (who got in a lot of trouble for street brawling with Antifa). It’s still a stretch, in my opinion, to call the Proud Boys anything but a male drinking club, but Rhodes actually has disavowed the Proud Boys as an “extremist group” on several occasions. He was never a member, nor a supporter. No Fap has never been political and is dedicated to providing addiction help to anyone who needs it. This does not stop Prause from continuing to link him to “white supremacists” through the weak association of one interview with McInnes, who isn’t a white supremacist either.

The lawsuit should be interesting to watch as it opens up statements on Twitter to legal scrutiny. Will Prause be held accountable for publishing false claims on social media?

Megan Fox is the author of “Believe Evidence; The Death of Due Process from Salome to #MeToo.” Follow on Twitter @MeganFoxWriter

Porn wars get personal in No Nut November

Original Article Link

Diana Davison
November 22, 2019

In No Nut November, the question “To fap or not to fap?” has become fraught with legal danger. This whimsical internet challenge has grown in popularity over the years alongside the scientific battle over whether or not pornography can become addictive.

By mid-November, those would-be abstainers who don’t take the challenge seriously likely already failed to remain the “masters of their domain” but the academic war will continue long after the end of the month.

Neuroscientist and sexual psychophysiologist Dr. Nicole Prause is currently facing two defamation lawsuits filed in US courts as a result of this battle. On Twitter, Prause has declared herself to be the victim of multiple SLAPP suits (Strategic Litigation Against Public Participation) after years of ongoing harassment. Prause has also claimed that her anti-porn adversaries have stalked her, threatened to rape her, and engaged in general misogyny including falsely accusing her of being paid by the porn industry.

The defamation suits accuse Prause of lying about being stalked, threatened, or harassed by them in any way. The statements of claim say that these are false accusations by Prause and that her public accusations are the only actual harassment taking place. In affidavits attached to the lawsuits, ten different people, including four women, claim to be personal victims of Dr. Prause.

This is not just a Twitter war.

Most people think anti-porn activists to be radical feminists like Catharine McKinnon and Andrea Dworkin, who sought to censor pornography as a civil rights violation and form of human trafficking.

In a strange twist of events, over the last decade, it has been a growing number of young men who have turned against the near limitless fap machine of internet pornography. This quickly increasing demographic has flooded websites like NoFap.com, seeking help for what they have self-described as an addiction to porn.

For some experts, like Prause, the claim that people can become addicted to porn is not only scientifically unsound but, she says, potentially dangerous. Those who oppose porn are often painted as religious science deniers, causing damage to people by morally shaming natural human sexuality. But other experts disagree.

The question of whether or not excessive pornography use can lead to addiction, actually causing physical changes to the brain, has yet to be decided. In the meantime, thousands of mostly young men seeking help online are being demonized as misogynistic for identifying pornography as a cause of their distress.

The complaints from these men include, but are not limited to, erectile dysfunction in the presence of a real-life partner, difficulty achieving orgasm during intercourse, social anxiety and escalation in their viewing habits which causes them to seek out more and more extreme forms of pornography in order to maintain their physical and psychological arousal.

The variety of pornography available online certainly ranges into extremely concerning areas, like rectal prolapse, and most people clicking from one video to the next are bound to quickly come across something this shocking.

In an email exchange with The Post Millennial, Dr. Prause commented “We know it is a low-desire behaviour, people do not actually engage in rosebudding play very much at all. I wonder to what extent some videos on “porn” websites really are just clickbait not expecting a sexual response. That is, all the pornographers want is clicks. It’s how they make money. If you see ‘anus actually falls out’ I would be really horrified…and really curious.”

For those who are struggling with a pornography consumption habit they feel has taken over their enjoyment of life, their curiosity has led many of them to believe they have an addiction.

But, how did this academic dispute escalate into civil lawsuits? It depends on who you ask.

The battle between Nicole Prause and her adversaries seems to have kicked off in March 2013 when an article by Dr. David Ley, titled “Your Brain On Porn: It’s Not Addictive,” was published in Psychology Today promoting a Prause study that had not yet been published. After a critical blog response was published, both posts were removed pending the publication of the research. The author of the response blog, Gary Wilson, also happened to be the owner of a website called “Your Brain On Porn” which was mentioned by name in the original article.

Wilson has chronicled the six-year dispute on his website and, when put on a timeline, which includes Prause’s complaints to licensing boards and attempts to have people fired for sexual harassment or academic fraud, most of the events appear to be initiated by Prause herself.

For example, on January 29, 2019, Prause attempted to take trademark ownership of the website name and domain “Your Brain On Porn.” Gary Wilson, who has regularly been accused of stalking Prause, took this move as another attack upon his work.

When asked about this event, Wilson told The Post Millennial that he received an anonymous tip that Prause had filed an application for his domain, which he then opposed. Without this tip, he may have lost his website and body of research. Prause finally withdrew her application on October 18, 2019.

Meanwhile, in April 2019 a website called “Real Your Brain On Porn” and a matching Twitter account were created which were ultimately found to be connected to Nicole Prause, though registered under the name of someone else. Prause provided The Post Millennial with the final report from the intellectual property investigation by WIPO and confirmed that this is one of the actions against her which Prause is calling a “SLAPP suit.”

Prause explained her motivation to acquire Wilson’s website as an effort to eliminate what she believes are defamatory accusations about her and which she considers to be evidence of a cyber-stalking behaviour. The website currently hosts a lengthy compilation of events and documentation in which Wilson presents Prause as the harasser.

The first defamation suit was filed against Dr. Prause and her business, Liberos LLC, in May 2019 but it was not Gary Wilson who took this legal action. It was filed by neurosurgeon Dr. Donald Hilton Jr after Prause contacted the university where he teaches as an adjunct professor and made a complaint alleging, among other things, that Hilton had engaged in sexual harassment.

Hilton’s own research on behavioural addiction stands in stark contrast to Prause’s conclusions and they have frequently clashed over the pros and cons of pornography use. Hilton was one of the first to criticize Prause’s EEG study released in 2013.

In his lawsuit, Hilton vehemently denies having harassed Prause and claims that her accusations were designed to cause maximum damage to his reputation. Prause’s motion to dismiss appears to admit to the contents of the emails she sent but claims freedom of speech and “the right to petition” as her defence.

Hilton’s lawyer, Dan Packard, told The Post Millennial that “no person can falsely accuse an academic rival of sexual harassment in a deliberate attempt to silence that rival and then successfully hide behind the First Amendment.  ‘Free speech’ can never be used as a sword to silence academic discussion and debate.”

An article published in Reason heavily questions the way Prause framed her claims of sexual harassment. Interviewed for that article, “UCLA law professor Eugene Volokh, a First Amendment specialist, questions Prause’s ‘novel and pretty dangerous’ definition of sexual harassment.” In the context of her complaint, it reads as if all criticism of her scientific work has been reconstructed as an attack on her as “a female scientist.”

But the second lawsuit moves well beyond an academic dispute.

The founder of NoFap.com, Alexander Rhodes, states in his lawsuit that he was caught in the crosshairs after he was featured in a July 6, 2016, New York Times article called “Internet Porn Nearly Ruined His Life. Now He Wants To Help.” Two days after publication, Prause and a colleague, Dr. David Ley, appear to ridicule Rhodes on Twitter and, in a now-deleted tweet, Prause described Rhodes as a “neckbeard.”

Rhodes’ statement of claim says the harassment escalated two years after this event when he alleges Prause began publicly accusing him of stalking and threatening her – an allegation which he denies. In an affidavit Rhodes states “I would never willingly subject myself to unnecessary communication with Dr. Prause.”

Prause has also publicly alleged that she filed FBI complaints against both Rhodes and Gary Wilson but in both cases, an FOI filed by the accused failed to produce any evidence of the reports. On the other hand, Wilson has posted evidence on his website that he filed a complaint against Prause after speaking with an FBI agent in December 2018.

Thank you for this piece. I have rape & stalking threats & harassment from #NoFap & filed w FBI.Will share report # in DM if you want to add yours. Founder Rhodes work w ProudBoys extremists,so worth getting on FBI radar.Scientists know NoFap misogyny wellhttps://t.co/iJbRaOJeBs pic.twitter.com/PPaCQHyTSz— Liberos (@NicoleRPrause) December 1, 2018

The legal system is still struggling to determine where free speech crosses the line into actionable defamation in online disputes. The question of who “started it” can lead to an endless rabbit hole in which all involved are accused of “sock puppetry” (creating multiple fake usernames) and online mobbing. Most certainly, things have gone too far when employers are being contacted, lawsuits are being filed in court, and it starts to involve the FBI.

Dr. Prause recently tweeted that she reported a fundraiser aimed at helping Rhodes raise money for his legal bills. Prause alleges, despite the existence of the lawsuit, that this fundraiser is fraudulent.

The @FBI has asked me to make clear that the donations going to @AlexanderRhodes of @NoFap are fraud. I have no business relations with the porn industry, no porn industry is named in any suit, & Rhodes is misrepresenting me as employed in porn.
Law enforcement are involved.— Liberos (@NicoleRPrause) November 12, 2019

While Rhodes’ personal Twitter account has been set to private, the NoFap account tweeted their astonishment over these events saying “This is like the alcohol industry trying to take down Alcoholics Anonymous.”

Rhodes’ lawyer Andrew Stebbins provided The Post Millennial with the following statement:

“Mr. Rhodes is and always has been an eager and willing participant in the provocative debate surrounding pornography addiction, and is openly receptive of honest and fair criticism of his work, views, and opinions. He will not, however, tolerate malicious personal attacks from those who seek to discredit, disparage and otherwise injure him through false statements designed to assassinate his character and reputation. This case is brought solely in response, and properly limited in scope, to such attacks.”

In a recent Vice article, Prause is quoted saying “”Alexander Rhodes and NoFap’s lawsuit has no merit nor do his libelous and unfounded assertions regarding me, my character, or my business,” adding that Rhodes is “entitled to his opinions, however he is not entitled to spread complete falsehoods about me to profit himself and silence speech.”

The author of the same Vice article then goes on to call NoFap’s principles “slippery,” and attempts to link Rhodes to white supremacists by citing an April 2016 interview with Gavin McInnes, founder of the Proud Boys, despite that group being founded many months later. Ironically, McInnes was a co-founder of Vice and thus has a much stronger connection to their own publication than to Alexander Rhodes or NoFap.

And, in a way, that leads us back to the original question: To fap or not to fap?

For the thousands of people, both men and women, who are asking themselves that very question, it is doubtful that mockery and insults from pornography supportive researchers will stop them from visiting the websites, like NoFap and Your Brain On Porn, who take their concerns more seriously.

The academic battle over whether or not their problem is technically an addiction is less important to them then getting help to change a habit they feel is destroying their lives.

EXCLUSIVE: Leftie Scram Shuts Down After Losing BIG MONEY Libel Case

Original Article Link

By Jordan James
Posted on May 24, 2020

SCRAM News, the leftist sh*troll that attacks the finances of start-up sites like Politicalite and smears working-class people as ‘far-right’, has lost a libel case, forcing it to shut down after being ‘financially nuked’, Politicalite can reveal. 

Scram posted Friday and said that it was due to close due to the “realities of the current crisis” adding “coronavirus has severely reduced the revenue of many outlets.”

“Sadly, jobs have been cut at BuzzFeed, the Economist, VICE, Quartz and several others.”

“Unfortunately, our revenue streams have also been impacted, and until the pandemic passes, we cannot envisage a situation where our finances are where we need them to be.”

“Therefore, we have taken the difficult decision to close our doors from 1st June, for the time being.”

Scram’s Editor Sam Bright, issued an apology on Thursday,  after the website was forced to pay out more than ‘six figures’ after libelling Alexander Rhodes, the founder of NoFab, a porn addiction recovery platform, according to a source close to the case. 

NoFap enables users to connect with a supportive community of individuals determined to reduce or eliminate pornography use and free themselves from compulsive sexual behaviours.

Alexander Rhodes

Politicalite revealed in early May that Scram had attempted to ‘extort’ cash out of U.S. firm Donorbox.

In an email seen by Politicalite, a member of the Scram news team acting on behalf of Stop Funding Fake News attempted to ‘extort’ cash from the US tech company who processed fees for activists Scram did not agree with.

Scram is also linked to the Stop Funding Fake News campaign group, who Politicalite is engaged in legal action of its own in, after the campaign group, along with Rachel Riley smeared us with false accusations of the website being ‘far-right’, despite our editor being of mixed race heritage. Despite us appealing for Sam to take down his false articles Scram kept them online for months.

Following the libel case, Mr Bright quietly deleted the articles smearing Politicalite, yet has offered no retraction or apology.

Scram Media Limited and two of its contributors have now been forced to pay out and apologise after publishing an article on ScramNews.com titled “Academic receives “death threats” from far-right after crowdfunding campaign to sue her.”

The Scram News article contained numerous false and defamatory statements concerning NoFap and Mr Rhodes. In particular, the article wrongly suggested that NoFap and Mr Rhodes were affiliated with extremists (including anti-Semites); that they had brought a frivolous and vexatious defamation claim in the US Federal Court in order to stymie legitimate academic research; that they had incited extremists to harass and threaten the defendant in those proceedings; that a crowdfunding campaign for the litigation had resulted in a defendant being stalked and their address being posted online; and that they had published misleading information about the case by wrongly suggesting that the defendants have ties to the pornography industry in order to secure funding.

Scram has now published a full retraction and apology which can be found here. This acknowledges that the publication was wholly misleading of the work undertaken by NoFap and Mr Rhodes, of the defamation claim brought by Mr Rhodes and the crowdfunding campaign, and that neither Mr Rhodes or NoFap have incited members of such extremist hate groups to harass or threaten the defendant. Mr Rhodes’ defamation claim does not concern the defendants’ research, but rather alleged defamatory attacks on Mr Rhodes and NoFap. The legal Complaint in that claim can be found here.

Scram Media Limited has agreed to pay Mr Rhodes substantial damages and his legal costs. 

It has undertaken not to republish similar false allegations.

Unlike many initiatives that have traditionally raised concerns about pornography, NoFap LLC prides itself on being secular, apolitical, sex-positive, and science-based. It is used by men and women from all over the world, from a wide variety of backgrounds, religious and spiritual beliefs (or non-belief), sexual orientations and identities, ages, nationalities, ethnicities, and other characteristics.

Commenting on the settlement, Mr Rhodes said:-“Our success in raising awareness about pornography addiction has resulted in us being the subject of a prolonged smear campaign orchestrated by elements who have close ties with the pornography industry, who have sought to falsely portray us as being affiliated to religious groups, hate groups, and extremists in an attempt to discredit us.”

“Our website unites people from all walks of life to overcome porn addiction together. These elements appear to want to falsely controversialize the issue and misrepresent us to distract people from our actual views, the facts, and the emerging body of scientific research. Despite their ongoing defamation and disinformation campaign, we will continue to provide resources for recovering porn addicts.”

An apology to Alexander Rhodes and NoFap LLC

Original Article Link

May 21, 2020
By Scram Media, Sam Bright and Kate Plummer

On 20 January 2020 we published an article on scramnews.com entitled “Academic receives “death threats” from far-right after crowdfunding campaign to sue her.”

The article contained numerous false and defamatory statements concerning NoFap LLC (‘NoFap’) and its founder Alexander Rhodes. In particular, the article wrongly suggested that NoFap and Mr Rhodes were affiliated with extremists (including anti-Semites); that they had brought a frivolous and vexatious defamation claim in order to stymie legitimate academic research; that they had incited extremists to harass and threaten the defendant in those proceedings (a Dr Nicole Prause); and that they had published misleading information about the campaign in order to secure crowdfunding.Advertisements

We wish to unequivocally retract the allegations contained within the article and apologise for the damage and distress caused to NoFap and Mr Rhodes by the publication.

We acknowledge that what we published was wholly misleading and an inaccurate representation, both of the work undertaken by NoFap and Mr Rhodes, and of the defamation claim brought by Mr Rhodes against Dr Prause, and that neither Mr. Rhodes or NoFap have incited members of extremist hate groups to harass or threaten Dr Prause.

Mr Rhodes’ defamation claim against Dr Prause does not concern her research, but rather alleged defamatory attacks on Mr Rhodes and NoFap. The formal copy of the legal Complaint in that claim (issued in the US Federal Court) can be found here. We acknowledge that there was, and is, nothing misleading about the crowdfunding campaign associated with this litigation.

NoFap is a pornography recovery online platform which enables users to connect with a supportive community of individuals determined to reduce or eliminate pornography use and free themselves from compulsive sexual behaviours. Unlike many initiatives that have traditionally criticised pornography, Mr Rhodes’ website prides itself on being secular, apolitical, sex-positive, and science-based. We understand that it is used by men and women from all over the world, from a wide variety of backgrounds, religious and spiritual beliefs (or non-belief), sexual orientations and identities, ages, nationalities, ethnicities, and other characteristics.

We wish to apologise to Mr Rhodes, NoFap and our readers. and we have agreed to pay substantial damages to NoFap and Mr Rhodes together with legal costs in respect of the damage/distress caused by the article.

Scram Media Limited
Sam Bright
Kate Plummer

Press Release: NoFap LLC and Alexander Rhodes secure substantial libel damages and apology from Scram News

Original Article Link

22.05.20

Scram Media Limited and two of its contributors have apologised and agreed to pay defamation damages to US-based NoFap LLC and its founder Alexander Rhodes after publishing an article on ScramNews.com titled “Academic receives “death threats” from far-right after crowdfunding campaign to sue her.”

NoFap runs an online pornography recovery platform that enables users to connect with a supportive community of individuals determined to reduce or eliminate pornography use and free themselves from compulsive sexual behaviours.  It receives millions of visitors every month and has been covered by a wide variety of outlets, including CNN, The New York Times, BBC, Business Insider, Time Magazine, MTV, The Washington Post, and Showtime.

The Scram News article contained numerous false and defamatory statements concerning NoFap and Mr Rhodes. In particular, the article wrongly suggested that NoFap and Mr Rhodes were affiliated with extremists (including anti-Semites); that they had brought a frivolous and vexatious defamation claim in the US Federal Court in order to stymie legitimate academic research; that they had incited extremists to harass and threaten the defendant in those proceedings; that a crowdfunding campaign for the litigation had resulted in a defendant being stalked and their address being posted online; and that they had published misleading information about the case by wrongly suggesting that the defendants have ties to the pornography industry in order to secure funding.

Scram has now published a full retraction and apology which can be found here.  This acknowledges that the publication was wholly misleading of the work undertaken by NoFap and Mr Rhodes, of the defamation claim brought by Mr Rhodes and the crowdfunding campaign, and that neither Mr Rhodes or NoFap have incited members of such extremist hate groups to harass or threaten the defendant.  Mr Rhodes’ defamation claim does not concern the defendants’ research, but rather alleged defamatory attacks on Mr Rhodes and NoFap. The legal Complaint in that claim can be found here.

Scram Media Limited has agreed to pay Mr Rhodes substantial damages and his legal costs.  It has undertaken not to republish similar false allegations.

Unlike many initiatives that have traditionally raised concerns about pornography, NoFap LLC prides itself on being secular, apolitical, sex-positive, and science-based. It is used by men and women from all over the world, from a wide variety of backgrounds, religious and spiritual beliefs (or non-belief), sexual orientations and identities, ages, nationalities, ethnicities, and other characteristics.

Commenting on the settlement, Mr Rhodes said:-

Our success in raising awareness about pornography addiction has resulted in us being the subject of a prolonged smear campaign orchestrated by elements who have close ties with the pornography industry, who have sought to falsely portray us as being affiliated to religious groups, hate groups, and extremists in an attempt to discredit usOur website unites people from all walks of life to overcome porn addiction together. These elements appear to want to falsely controversialize the issue and misrepresent us to distract people from our actual views, the facts, and the emerging body of scientific research. Despite their ongoing defamation and disinformation campaign, we will continue to provide resources for recovering porn addicts.”

NoFap LLC and Alexander Rhodes were represented in the UK claim by Iain Wilson and Elisabeth Mason