Talk:Effects of pornography/Archive 2

MEDRS violation
Do explain why a WP:PRIMARY study would be compliant with WP:MEDRS. The source explicitly links delay discounting with bolstering the claim of porn addiction. So, it is a medical claim.

The whole article is a cesspool of WP:MEDRS violations. Unreliable sources have been deleted, one from a publisher which made it to Beall's List and another paper which has never passed through formal peer-review of any kind.

Also, editors should cut down claims that pornography is a "public health crisis" since the American Psychiatric Association gave it the lie in DSM-5-TR, published in March 2022. The claim of "public health crisis" is histrionics of the Christian right. WP:FRINGE applies. The book by Rothman (OUP, 2021) does not support their histrionics, either. Evidence to that extent: https://oxford.universitypressscholarship.com/view/10.1093/oso/9780190075477.001.0001/oso-9780190075477 tgeorgescu (talk) 00:45, 31 May 2022 (UTC)
 * The linked material has nothing to do with porn addiction and is not a medical claim. It's a notable research observation on the general effects of porn use.
 * In regards to your claim about the "Christian right" - while some anti-porn groups might put out biased information, there are plenty of pro-porn groups who do as well. Porn is a multi-billion dollar industry and has many groups and advocates who defend it regardless of what its impacts may be. In any case, most of the sources critical of porn in the article are honest research and have nothing to do with politics. DayTime99 (talk) 01:11, 31 May 2022 (UTC)


 * According to WP:FRINGE, WP:PSCI, WP:ARBPS, and WP:ARBCAM we operate with WP:GOODBIAS.
 * Besides, you're not the author of that source, so you may not speak for them. The source is adamant that their claim about delay discounting supports the claim of porn addiction.
 * And you lack evidence that the porn industry fills the pockets of AMA, the two APA, and WHO, including top medical researchers. That's conspiracy theory. tgeorgescu (talk) 01:29, 31 May 2022 (UTC)
 * You lack evidence that some fantastical "Christian right" is behind all research that shows porn use can negative effects. Some of the biggest anti-porn advocates were and are atheists. DayTime99 (talk) 01:31, 31 May 2022 (UTC)
 * First, according to WP:GEVAL the two sides of the debate aren't equal. According to professor E. T. M. Laan, a sexologist working for the Academic Medical Center, it is usually the American religious right which claims the existence of pornography addiction and such claims are rare (scarce) among sexologists. This is a WP:RS/AC claim: sexologists as a rule of thumb shun the concept of porn addiction. Such moral panic is a "political stunt". tgeorgescu (talk) 01:42, 31 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Let's just be clear on terms. There is a difference between pornography use having some negative effects (which even the sources you're citing state is "likely" the case), "pornography being a public health crisis", and porn addiction being a bonafide medically-classified addiction. By not equating all of these points, we can get to the best outcome. DayTime99 (talk) 01:54, 31 May 2022 (UTC)
 * My take has been expressed at . What I have learned since then? That a diagnosis of porn addiction is highly unlikely. Note that I am not opposed to a diagnosis of porn OCD, or CSBD. tgeorgescu (talk) 01:57, 31 May 2022 (UTC)
 * I think the debate over how porn addiction should be classified stems from how the popular conception of the word "addiction" and the strict medical definition of "addiction" are different. For example, one definition of addiction in the Merriam Webster dictionary is "a strong inclination to do, use, or indulge in something repeatedly". Porn use, for many men, certainly meets this criteria. With this in mind, it's understandable why many people use the phrase "porn addiction" to denote a porn habit that's difficult to quit. DayTime99 (talk) 02:06, 31 May 2022 (UTC)
 * If you want to make a psychiatrist or psychotherapist angry, you should conflate between compulsion and addiction.
 * And my take is simply my own opinion, not medical orthodoxy. ICD-11 says there is CSBD, DSM-5-TR says there is no CSBD. tgeorgescu (talk) 09:48, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

Are any of these articles any good: ?

I think the systematic review could be used. —Arthurfragoso (talk) 23:54, 4 June 2022 (UTC)


 * Okay:
 * Love is from MDPI, which is not a WP:MEDRS-compliant publisher;
 * de Alarcón is not indexed for MEDLINE, which could be a red flag that it's not reliable, eventually it could be accepted, but I don't predict that accepting it would be easy (other editors may chime in);
 * Brand is a WP:PRIMARY study, so it fails WP:MEDRS;
 * Allen is a WP:PRIMARY study, so it fails WP:MEDRS.
 * And the million dollars question is if de Alarcón was SOTA, why did DSM-5-TR not abide by it? tgeorgescu (talk) 02:31, 5 June 2022 (UTC)


 * Just noticed that de Alarcón was published by MDPI. Well, that's not a WP:MEDRS-compliant publisher, so that review carries no weight inside Wikipedia. And that pretty much explains why the DSM-5-TR team tossed it out of the pool with relevant research papers: inappropriate publisher. Everything that ever made it to Beall's List is irrelevant to writing the DSM. tgeorgescu (talk) 10:45, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

Pornography is bad
This is has a bad effect on mostly adolescent 102.89.40.1 (talk) 21:26, 6 March 2023 (UTC)


 * In order to edit Wikipedia (well, except correcting spelling mistakes), you have to WP:CITE WP:RS, in this case there are very stringent conditions, see WP:MEDRS;
 * There is not much information about it, since universities are not allowed to perform experimental studies upon minors and porn;
 * The few empirical studies that do exist say: low correlation, and causality cannot be shown.
 * Conclusion: no, it isn't science that pornography is bad for adolescents. While that might be religion, this is not an article in theology.
 * While there are legal demands prohibiting showing pornography to minors, that is an ethical prescription, not a fact of empirical sciences. And this article is not an article in law science, either. The legal prescription must be obeyed, because the Parliament expresses sovereignty over its state, but that does not make its claim an objective, proven scientific fact. You should not conflate scientific facts with ethical demands, yet both are entitled to respect. Law defines the ethics of science, it does not prescribe its facts. So, there are laws meant to protect minors from harm, but there is definitely no scientific evidence that watching porn is harmful to minors. Also explained in the book Not in Front of the Children. While these books are more than 20 years old, nothing has essentially changed which would invalidate their point.
 * If you want a popular, but scientific introduction to the problem, see https://psychcentral.com/lib/teens-and-internet-pornography . But do mind that it talks about porn addiction, and that's an entirely pseudoscientific diagnosis. tgeorgescu (talk) 07:55, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: ENGLI-1102-050 Research, Writing, and the Production of Knowledge
— Assignment last updated by Penguinsrcool2023 (talk) 23:27, 11 May 2023 (UTC)

Brain impact
We should include information on brain damage resulting from porn Jm33746 (talk) 21:37, 11 March 2023 (UTC)


 * Any such information would need to cite material meeting WP:MEDRS criteria, and I very much doubt that such sources exist. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:07, 11 March 2023 (UTC)


 * ”In God we trust. All others must bring data.” In this case data means WP:MEDRS, that blog post is not even medical or psychological research.
 * And, unfortunately for you, the claim that "porn leads to sexual violence" is very easy to debunk with a modus tollens. tgeorgescu (talk) 23:17, 12 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Kühn S, Gallinat J. Brain structure and functional connectivity associated with pornography consumption: the brain on porn. JAMA Psychiatry. 2014 Jul 1;71(7):827-34. doi: 10.1001/jamapsychiatry.2014.93. PMID: 24871202.
 * https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/24871202/
 * can we cite this Jm33746 (talk) 01:29, 9 June 2023 (UTC)


 * It is already WP:CITEd. tgeorgescu (talk) 02:38, 9 June 2023 (UTC)