Talk:Fight the New Drug

op-ed
Delete sentence about op-ed because this is an encyclopedia, a collection of facts. It is not a collection of opinions. Furthermore, ejaculation/orgasm increases dopamine in the brain, sentence is misleading. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2607:FEA8:12E0:820:482A:3D1A:A745:9788 (talk) 04:14, 4 June 2020 (UTC)


 * Dopamine is an old canard, nobody takes it seriously anymore, except journalists, see e.g. . Specialists in addiction speak about DeltaFosB, they don't speak about dopamine (yup, dopamine as producing addiction is for wannabes). And, in DSM-5 the concept of addiction has been deprecated, they speak of compulsive disorders or impulse control disorders instead. Pornography rewires the brain to the same extent as preaching the gospel or listening to a choir rewires the brain. Tgeorgescu (talk) 05:26, 4 June 2020 (UTC)


 * "Obviously, if you were actually to fast from dopamine it would probably be fatal," . "Dopamine serves many complex functions in the brain, and only kindergarten brain science describes it as an addictive drug." . tgeorgescu (talk) 06:27, 14 August 2021 (UTC)

Extraordinary claim
Why it would be an extraordinary claim that the LDS Church supports FTND with lots of money?

We have:


 * all FTND founders are Mormon;
 * LDS Church has an axe to grind against pornography, as obvious by multiple public campaigns, see e.g., ;
 * FTND immediately got access in public schools and colleges from the state of Utah, while those are almost impenetrable to mainstream scientific sexual education;
 * Donald Hilton, MD, a prominent Mormon, has publicly spoken against masturbation and pornography at religious right forums.

So, in all honesty, I cannot see why WP:REDFLAG would be applicable to Watson's claim. Tgeorgescu (talk) 08:13, 10 March 2021 (UTC)


 * I've been following the discussion closely and find it interesting. As noted by, at Talk:NoFap, "Neither of these sources claim that FTND or Nofap is being funded by "the Elders of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints. Nor do they state that "FTND operates Nofap" Nofap is never mentioned by name in those two articles. Essentially this claim is relying upon Watson's claim that is unsupported by any evidence he gave."


 * So while I'm actually an atheist from the East Coast and am the total opposite of an LDS Church member from Utah, I don't see any evidence that the LDS Church is actively getting involved with the FTND.


 * I haven't found a reliable source to validate what the personal beliefs of the FTND founders are. There's pretty clear evidence that the people working with and for them are a diverse mix of people from all kinds of backgrounds, as with NoFap and many feminist movements.


 * And yes, even if the LDS Church has an ax to grind against pornography, that fact is irrelevant given that FTND is clearly a non-religious organization just like NoFap. FTND has a lot of members and supporters who are African Americans, evangelical Christians, liberal feminists, and what not-lots of groups that I personally don't like or agree with. One could say that many churches have an "ax to grind" about pornography, but I'd say that this irrelevant to FTND since they bear all the hallmarks of a non-religious anti-pornography organization, and there is no affiliation with the LDS church, with claims of LDS connections all being speculative at best.


 * I don't agree with everything FTND does, but it is clear that sectarian religious motives aren't involved here. It's like accusing anti-pornography organizations in Muslim-majority countries as being financed by hardline Islamic groups simply because the founders are from Muslim-majority countries.


 * Like Tgeorgescu-whom I assume is a non-religious deist like Einstein-I'm not even religious, in contrast to some of the other editors here. But this is not an article about religion, so I don't see why mentioning the LDS Church is even relevant here, as noted many times by several users here. Anyhow, Tgeorgescu is doing great work too, and hopefully everyone of all backgrounds and opinions can reach some kind of consensus to make this article more relevant and on-topic. Haplotypology (talk) 02:24, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

Update from the author
B. M. Watson replied to my request with The correlation between FTND and YBOP was a conflation, it was originally from https://www.thedailybeast.com/porn-kills-love-mormons-anti-smut-crusade but sam updated it and my article was updated with an erratum The budget information is public information as it's disclosed under IRS policy

Quoted by Tgeorgescu (talk) 19:10, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

I saw the paper. The figure of one million dollars has been officially retracted. Tgeorgescu (talk) 19:37, 15 April 2021 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your tireless research on these kinds of organizations and movements. I'm a middle-of-the-ground kind of guy who doesn't believe in their more extreme claims and believes pornography viewed in moderation is natural, but organizations like NoFap and FTND do make important points about pornography addiction. My view is that it's like alcohol. A little of it is healthy, but addiction can result in catastrophic consequences. Haplotypology (talk) 02:24, 29 April 2021 (UTC)


 * Yup, as I stated many years ago, I'm not opposed to the idea that some people develop porn OCD or CPBD. I just disagree that the addiction model is more appropriate than the compulsion model. For reasons I have stated elsewhere, the label porn addiction has been compromised through defending white male felons in court and its promotion by white supremacy groups. Oh, yes, therapy for porn addiction is an euphemism for praying the gay away. tgeorgescu (talk) 00:05, 2 November 2021 (UTC)


 * Also, porn addiction "therapy" promotes suicide. tgeorgescu (talk) 10:16, 27 February 2022 (UTC)
 * @Haplotypology Your claim "that a little alcohol is healthy" is not supported by WHO/Europe https://www.who.int/europe/news/item/04-01-2023-no-level-of-alcohol-consumption-is-safe-for-our-health 31.20.106.40 (talk) 11:35, 6 May 2023 (UTC)


 * Anyway, Wikipedia editors do not make the call, WP:MEDRS such as from APA and WHO make the call. tgeorgescu (talk) 17:28, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

DSM-5-TR
It seems that DSM-5-TR, the Bible of psychiatry since March 2022, will cream FTND. Since I don't want to repeat what I wrote, see Talk:NoFap. tgeorgescu (talk) 22:08, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

DSM-5-TR, published in March 2022, does not recognize a diagnosis of sexual addiction (which would include internet pornography viewing). tgeorgescu (talk) 15:31, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

This means that the scientific debate thereupon has been closed until the 2030s. tgeorgescu (talk) 19:05, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

Fringe
Your removal violates the website policy WP:PSCI and the guideline WP:FRINGE. You have been warned of discretionary sanctions.

More precisely, Ideas that have been rejected, are widely considered to be absurd or pseudoscientific, only of historical interest, or primarily the realm of science fiction, should be documented as such, using reliable sources. from WP:FRINGELEVEL.

Do you want to bet upon eating your own hat that DSM-5-TR will include porn addiction? I.e. recognize it as a valid diagnosis. It is just a few weeks away.

AFAIK there are two WP:RS which WP:V the claim: one written by four mental health professionals and one written by a librarian. The librarian evaluated the low quality of pro-FTND sources strictly within his competence as a librarian: studies published in pro domo sua journals of fleeting existence. tgeorgescu (talk) 21:04, 30 January 2022 (UTC)


 * Have you checked the website ? It is full of scientific studies 24.53.78.194 (talk) 21:20, 5 September 2023 (UTC)
 * There are dozens of studies on the website 24.53.78.194 (talk) 21:27, 5 September 2023 (UTC)


 * If you think that quantity of studies wins over WP:MEDRS, you're wrong. We follow WP:BESTSOURCES, not crappy sources. tgeorgescu (talk) 04:22, 6 September 2023 (UTC)

Source cited
FTND has scientific sources for their claims Jm33746 (talk) 20:06, 4 April 2023 (UTC)


 * Scientific sources aren't born equal. See WP:MEDRS. Scientific sources are not people, so do not enjoy human rights. Scientists are people, but their papers aren't people.
 * Porn addiction is a scientific dispute of the 2010s, I do not think that it got much traction in the 2020s. tgeorgescu (talk) 23:29, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

Camilleri
Camilleri e.a. does not pass WP:MEDRS twice:


 * WP:PRIMARY study;
 * Not currently indexed for MEDLINE.

Besides, the DSM-5-TR team could have read that paper, but they chose to ditch its conclusions. Science has spoken. tgeorgescu (talk) 12:31, 19 April 2023 (UTC)

More criticism in regards to masturbation
FTND has claimed "Fight the New Drug does not have a stance on masturbation."1 yet unsubtly contradicted itself with remarks such as..

.. "Sex is an awesome and healthy part of committed, loving relationships."2

.. "As humans, we are programmed [...] to feel the desire to be sexual with another person."2

I think it's not believable that "[they do] not have a stance on masturbation.".

1https://fightthenewdrug.org/porn-is-taking-away-mens-ability-to-have-actual-sex/

2https://fightthenewdrug.org/why-real-love-is-actually-sexier-than-porn/

Wallby (talk) 10:59, 26 August 2023 (UTC)


 * Also "actual-sex" in the URL "porn-is-taking-away-mens-ability-to-have-actual-sex", delegitimatizing masturbation as a valid sexual act (i.e. calling masturbation "not actual sex") is inconsistent with their claim "Fight the New Drug does not have a stance on masturbation".
 * E.g. partnered sex v.s. solo sex would be neutral. This coming from an organisation that boasts "their scientific expertise" this kind of language is unlikely to be a mistake.
 * Wallby (talk) 11:06, 26 August 2023 (UTC)
 * So, as always, our own opinions and observations do not count for anything here. I'm not saying you are wrong, I think you raise a valid point, but unless and until a reliable source makes the same observation, we can't add anything on it to the article. What we can do is add statements reliably sourced to the organization and let the reader draw their own conclusions. Beeblebrox (talk) 16:38, 6 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Not even if outright mistakes are spotted (i.e. referring to Dr. Philip Zimbardo as "professor Stanford University" in 2018 even though he retired in 2003, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FyVaFel5Zsw) I suppose? Wallby (talk) 18:22, 5 October 2023 (UTC)