@SmokeWagon
Dude, did you actually read any of the studies you posted?
archive.vn/TzQG6
This is not a reliable source, it's just a women's fashion magazine.
archive.vn/B6uJb
Doesn't mention porn once, anywhere. Not a single time. Study was about SS personality trait and risk taking behavior like sky diving.
archive.vn/Q0tXf
Found that any orgasm, not specifically porn, increases prolactin for an hour afterwards to control libido. Having frequent orgasms temporarily reduces your sex drive, as you would expect. That's it.
archive.vn/82sdo
Studied a group of only 28 prople. The minimum number for statiscally important studies to accepted is 1000. Study determined only that people were distracted and performed more poorly at a memory game while being shown pornographic images, as you'd expect.
archive.vn/PE5Sc
Doesn't mention porn once. Or hypofrontality. Study was just about underlying brain mechanisms of sexual arousal and what occurs during arousal. Nothing about long term impacts of frequent masturbation.
archive.vn/Yi616
Doesn't mention hypofrontality or porn at all. Simply demonstrated that people were more likely to make risky plays in Black Jack while they were sexually aroused. Study was about risky sexual behavior like not using a condom.
archive.vn/jUhcj
Studied only 64 people. Didn't say anything about "loss of gray matter." Could not determine whether what they observed was causative, or just a precondition. Their setup did not allow them to identify cause and effect.
archive.vn/UgWMX
"CSB (compulsive sexual behavior) subjects showed greater left amygdala gray matter volumes (small volume corrected, Bonferroni adjusted P < 0.01)"
Direct quote. Literally the opposite of what you said. Also yet again unable to determine whether differences in the brain were caused by sexual habits, or were what caused the sexual habits: "Future studies should aim to assess longitudinal measures to investigate whether these findings are risk factors that predate the onset of the behaviors or are consequences of the behaviors." Differentiating correlation and causation is hard, which is why every study has some passage like this. Funny how that keeps coming up. Almost like it's important.
archive.vn/JxBBF
Was studying the reactions of recovering meth addicts to images of meth related products. Found that recovering meth addicts responded with craving and occipital lobe activation when shown methamphetamine related images, while a control group of non addicts did not. Reactions to pornographic images were shown to both as a control, as both groups would be expected to react to pornographic images. Nobody involved was a "porn addict."
Throwing out studies you haven't read, quoted from someone else who deliberately mischaracterized them doesn't count as "doing your research." Only 2 of your 8 "studies about the negative affects of porn" were even about porn, and they were both inconclusive because scientists don't like drawing conclusions without evidence.
And maybe don't get your ideas about how the world works from twitter threads written by anonymous morons from 4chan.