Talk:Pornography addiction

Unscientific ?
Are we sure this is unscientific? Yourbrainonporn and fight the new drug have science for this Jm33746 (talk) 23:16, 17 March 2023 (UTC)


 * https://fightthenewdrug.org/how-porn-can-affect-the-brain-like-a-drug/ Jm33746 (talk) 23:27, 17 March 2023 (UTC)
 * As you've been already told, Wikipedia relies on sources that meet WP:MEDRS, not random blogs and advocacy sites. MrOllie (talk) 23:30, 17 March 2023 (UTC)
 * The main sources used for the above blog are articles from the Telangana Journal of Psychiatry, reflecting the views of the Indian Psychiatry Society. Dimadick (talk) 06:17, 18 March 2023 (UTC)
 * You should know that popular superstition scares Hindus of losing their semen. So, while the measured effect could be real, it only says that people terrified of losing their vital energy are also terrified of porn and masturbation, simply because of their religious upbringing. And, yup, such effect is not unique to Hindus, Conservative Christians are also scared of porn and masturbation because of their own religious upbringing. There are peer-reviewed studies to that extent. DSM-IV-TR has an entry about shenkui, a syndrome due to being scared of losing semen which only exists among the Chinese and their neighboring nations. So, yeah, the effect is real, but they are not measuring porn addiction, they are measuring cultural attitudes inducing nocebo. Here: tgeorgescu (talk)  13:22, 18 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Citations
 * 1Love, T., Laier, C., Brand, M., Hatch, L., & Hajela, R. (2015). Neuroscience of Internet Pornography Addiction: A Review and Update. Behavioral sciences (Basel, Switzerland), 5(3), 388–433. https://doi.org/10.3390/bs5030388
 * 2Stark R., Klucken T. (2017) Neuroscientific Approaches to (Online) Pornography Addiction. In: Montag C., Reuter M. (eds) Internet Addiction. Studies in Neuroscience, Psychology and Behavioral Economics. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-46276-9_7
 * 3De Sousa, A., & Lodha, P. (2017). Neurobiology of Pornography Addiction - A clinical review. Telangana Journal of Psychiatry, 3(2), 66-70. doi:10.18231/2455-8559.2017.0016
 * 4Costumero, V., Barrós-Loscertales, A., Bustamante, J. C., Ventura-Campos, N., Fuentes, P., Rosell-Negre, P., & Ávila, C. (2013). Reward sensitivity is associated with brain activity during erotic stimulus processing. PloS one, 8(6), e66940. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0066940
 * 5De Sousa, A., & Lodha, P. (2017). Neurobiology of Pornography Addiction - A clinical review. Telangana Journal of Psychiatry, 3(2), 66-70. doi:10.18231/2455-8559.2017.0016
 * 6Brand, M., Snagowski, J., Laier, C., & Maderwald, S. (2016). Ventral striatum activity when watching preferred pornographic pictures is correlated with symptoms of Internet pornography addiction. NeuroImage, 129, 224–232. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuroimage.2016.01.033
 * 7De Sousa, A., & Lodha, P. (2017). Neurobiology of Pornography Addiction - A clinical review. Telangana Journal of Psychiatry, 3(2), 66-70. doi:10.18231/2455-8559.2017.0016
 * 8De Sousa, A., & Lodha, P. (2017). Neurobiology of Pornography Addiction - A clinical review. Telangana Journal of Psychiatry, 3(2), 66-70. doi:10.18231/2455-8559.2017.0016
 * 9Rosenberg, H., & Kraus, S. (2014). The relationship of “passionate attachment” for pornography with sexual compulsivity, frequency of use, and craving for pornography. Addictive Behaviors, 39(5), 1012-1017.
 * 10Snagowski, J., Laier, C., Duka, T., & Brand, M. (2016). Subjective Craving for Pornography and Associative Learning Predict Tendencies Towards Cybersex Addiction in a Sample of Regular Cybersex Users. Sexual Addiction & Compulsivity, 23(4), 342-360. doi:10.1080/10720162.2016.1151390
 * 11Laier, C., & Brand, M. (2017). Mood changes after watching pornography on the Internet are linked to tendencies towards Internet-pornography-viewing disorder. Addictive Behaviors Reports, 5, 9-13. doi:10.1016/j.abrep.2016.11.003
 * 12Teffer, K., & Semendeferi, K. (2012). Human prefrontal cortex: evolution, development, and pathology. Progress in brain research, 195, 191–218. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-444-53860-4.00009-X
 * 13Volkow, N. D., Wang, G. J., Fowler, J. S., Tomasi, D., Telang, F., & Baler, R. (2010). Addiction: decreased reward sensitivity and increased expectation sensitivity conspire to overwhelm the brain's control circuit. BioEssays : news and reviews in molecular, cellular and developmental biology, 32(9), 748–755. https://doi.org/10.1002/bies.201000042
 * 14Kuhn, S., & Gallinat, J. (2014). Brain Structure and Functional Connectivity Associated With Pornography Consumption: The Brain on Porn. JAMA Psychiatry, 71(7), 827-834. doi:10.1001/jamapsychiatry.2014.93
 * 15Volkow, N. D., Koob, G. F., & McLellan, A. T. (2016). Neurobiologic advances from the brain disease model of addiction. N Engl J Med, 374(4), 363-371. doi:10.1056/NEJMra1511480
 * 16Kühn, S., & Gallinat, J. (2014). Brain structure and functional connectivity associated with pornography consumption: The brain on porn. JAMA psychiatry, 71(7), 827–834. https://doi.org/10.1001/jamapsychiatry.2014.93
 * 17Antons, S., Mueller, S. M., Wegmann, E., Trotzke, P., Schulte, M. M., & Brand, M. (2019). Facets of impulsivity and related aspects differentiate among recreational and unregulated use of Internet pornography. Journal of behavioral addictions, 8(2), 223–233. https://doi.org/10.1556/2006.8.2019.22
 * 18Reid, R. C., Karim, R., McCrory, E., & Carpenter, B. N. (2010). Self-reported differences on measures of executive function and hypersexual behavior in a patient and community sample of men. The International journal of neuroscience, 120(2), 120–127. https://doi.org/10.3109/00207450903165577
 * 19Negash, S., Sheppard, N. V., Lambert, N. M., & Fincham, F. D. (2016). Trading Later Rewards for Current Pleasure: Pornography Consumption and Delay Discounting. Journal of sex research, 53(6), 689–700. https://doi.org/10.1080/00224499.2015.1025123
 * 20Hilton, D. L., & Watts, C. (2011). Pornography addiction: A neuroscience perspective. Surgical neurology international, 2, 19. https://doi.org/10.4103/2152-7806.76977
 * 21Young K. S. (2013). Treatment outcomes using CBT-IA with Internet-addicted patients. Journal of behavioral addictions, 2(4), 209–215. https://doi.org/10.1556/JBA.2.2013.4.3
 * 22Nathanson, A. (2021). Psychotherapy with young people addicted to internet pornography. Psychoanal.Study Child, 74(1), 160-173. doi:10.1080/00797308.2020.1859286
 * 23Pfefferbaum, A., Rosenbloom, M. J., Chu, W., Sassoon, S. A., Rohlfing, T., Pohl, K. M., Zahr, N. M., & Sullivan, E. V. (2014). White matter microstructural recovery with abstinence and decline with relapse in alcohol dependence interacts with normal ageing: a controlled longitudinal DTI study. The lancet. Psychiatry, 1(3), 202–212. https://doi.org/10.1016/S2215-0366(14)70301-3
 * 24Yau, Y. H., & Potenza, M. N. (2015). Gambling disorder and other behavioral addictions: recognition and treatment. Harvard review of psychiatry, 23(2), 134–146. https://doi.org/10.1097/HRP.0000000000000051
 * 25Rullmann, M., Preusser, S., Poppitz, S., Heba, S., Gousias, K., Hoyer, J., Schütz, T., Dietrich, A., Müller, K., Hankir, M. K., & Pleger, B. (2019). Adiposity Related Brain Plasticity Induced by Bariatric Surgery. Frontiers in human neuroscience, 13, 290. https://doi.org/10.3389/fnhum.2019.00290
 * 26Gilliland, R., South, M., Carpenter, B. N., & Hardy, S. A. (2011). The roles of shame and guilt in hypersexual behavior.18(1), 12-29. doi:10.1080/10720162.2011.551182 Jm33746 (talk) 19:59, 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.
 * E.g. Psychotherapy with young people addicted to internet pornography is not even indexed for PubMed, let alone MEDLINE. How do we call treating minors for an unrecognized mental disorder? We call it medical malpractice. "addicted to internet pornography" is a bogus diagnosis.
 * Friendly advice: if you don't like WP:BESTSOURCES, you won't last long as a Wikipedia editor. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/?term=nathanson+pornography shows 0 (zero, naught) results. tgeorgescu (talk) 05:37, 5 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Friendly advice: Just because something is published/indexed on Pubmed doesn't mean its reliable:
 * https://www.mcgill.ca/oss/article/critical-thinking-health-and-nutrition-general-science/finding-paper-pubmed-does-not-mean-paper-any-good
 * As it turns out, Pubmed regularly indexes studies from predatory journals:
 * https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6148641/
 * https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7520066/
 * Oh and here is the Nathonson study, published in a reputable journal, which is what WP:BESTSOURCES is all about:
 * https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/00797308.2020.1859286
 * Seems like you need to read carefully what WP:BESTSOURCES is, given that you don't seem to like it. Ducornius (talk) 15:47, 3 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Another source pointing out the flaws with Pubmed:
 * https://scholarlykitchen.sspnet.org/2017/09/07/confusion-journals-pubmed-now/ Ducornius (talk) 15:48, 3 April 2024 (UTC)
 * No one has suggested that everything in PubMed is reliable (per WP:MEDRS our guidelines say the opposite). But it is a minimum bar - if a medical journal is not indexed there that is a massive red flag. MrOllie (talk) 16:28, 3 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Yet we have plenty of studies from predatory journals which are Medline indexed.
 * I would argue that having a Medline study from a predatory journal is a much bigger red flag that having a study that is not Medline indexed as it reveals glaring cracks and flaws within the Medline system.
 * I understand that not everything in Pubmed is reliable, that wasn't even the point of my comment.
 * My comment was more of a criticism towards Tgeorgescu's usage of "Oh, study not Pubmed indexed? It must be dumpster fire/unreliable" line of reasoning. Using such reasoning eliminates a large body of properly done research. Ducornius (talk) 16:49, 3 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Yes. Our requirements (given in WP:MEDRS) do eliminate a large body of properly done research. That is by design. We wait for replications and coverage by systematic reviews. MrOllie (talk) 16:56, 3 April 2024 (UTC)
 * As I said before, my comment was more directed to Tgeorgescu's line of reasoning and not towards the general WP:BESTSOURCES or WP:MEDRS rule. Ducornius (talk) 17:01, 3 April 2024 (UTC)
 * But then there are cases where replications and systematic reviews may not be Medline indexed and as such, will provide a more distorted view of the scientific consensus on a topic. Ducornius (talk) 17:02, 3 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is fine with that. We need to have some minimum standards, and these are the ones the community here has settled on. MrOllie (talk) 17:14, 3 April 2024 (UTC)
 * I understand. Thanks for providing your input Mr Ollie. Have a good day. Ducornius (talk) 17:42, 3 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Besides, this article itself contains so many factual errors and pseudoscientific claims, I'm flabbergasted to see this page not be tagged for WP:NPOV.
 * Here's an example from the article:
 * "The International Classification of Disorders 11 (ICD-11) rejected "pornography addiction". Specifically, the World Health Organization (WHO) wrote: "Based on the limited current data, it would therefore seem premature to include [Internet use] in ICD-11.""
 * There are two major issues with this part:
 * 1. ICD 11 did not reject porn addiction because it was never under any formal diagnosis. WHO spokesperson Christian Lindmeier has mentioned this in an interview with SELF:
 * https://www.self.com/story/compulsive-sexual-behavior-disorder-who
 * "“There is ongoing scientific debate on whether or not the compulsive sexual behavior disorder constitutes the manifestation of a behavioral addiction,” WHO spokesperson Christian Lindmeier (https://www.who.int/news-room/media-contacts) tells SELF. “WHO does not use the term sex addiction because we are not taking a position about whether it is physiologically an addiction or not.”"
 * The ICD even updated their Additional Clinical Features section to explicitly say "use of pornography" due to misrepresentations by pro porn activists:
 * https://icd.who.int/browse/2024-01/mms/en#1630268048
 * Compulsive Sexual Behaviour Disorder may be expressed in a variety of behaviours, including sexual behaviour with others, masturbation, use of pornography, cybersex (internet sex), telephone sex, and other forms of repetitive sexual behaviour.
 * 2. WHO did not write "Based on the limited current data, it would therefore seem premature to include [Internet use] in ICD-11.", Jon Grant did in 2014. The line was referring to Internet Gaming Disorder, not Porn addiction:
 * https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4102276/
 * "The DSM-5 has included Internet gaming disorder in the section “Conditions for further study”. Although potentially an important behaviour to understand, and one certainly with a high profile in some countries 12, it is questionable whether there is enough scientific evidence at this time to justify its inclusion as a disorder. Based on the limited current data, it would therefore seem premature to include it in the ICD-11."
 * There are so many more errors, but this stood out the most. Ducornius (talk) 16:57, 3 April 2024 (UTC)
 * What about Donald Hilton ? 159.230.209.97 (talk) 14:33, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
 * AFAIK Hilton is a surgeon, so whatever his specialism is, it isn't porn. He has no qualifications/expertise to pass as a WP:RS about the existence of porn addiction. tgeorgescu (talk) 15:27, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
 * A surgeon writing on psychology? What next, should we evaluate the opinions of bartenders on psychology? They are equally qualified to Hilton. Dimadick (talk) 10:11, 20 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Generally speaking, the idea the masturbation produces diseases is sheer insanity. It is, simply put, delirium. tgeorgescu (talk) 11:13, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
 * https://www.indy100.com/lifestyle/porn-side-effects-sex-coach 184.170.66.130 (talk) 03:37, 27 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Dr. Trish is not a scientific researcher. According to publish or perish, she only published one paper, more than a decade ago. tgeorgescu (talk) 04:33, 27 February 2024 (UTC)
 * David Ley is not a scientific researcher either, but that didn't stop you from citing his Psychology Today opinion pieces. Ducornius (talk) 15:32, 3 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Apples and oranges. Ley at least seems reliably published, which cannot be said about YouTube videos. The problem is that high-quality medical and scientific sources do not discuss the matter, so Wikipedia defaults to WP:PARITY. If you think they do, WP:CITE your WP:SOURCES.
 * Besides, the situation is extremely asymmetrical, see WP:PSCI, WP:GEVAL, WP:ECREE, and WP:FRINGE.
 * Leigh isn't a . That journalistic description is WP:CB, making the source unreliable.
 * Mainstream scientists who debunk porn addiction aren't . The APA team who wrote DSM-5-TR aren't . Scientists have their reasons for rejecting porn addiction, and their reasons have nothing to do with activism. It's an objective fact that porn addiction isn't accepted by mainstream science. It's not the job of Wikipedia to change mainstream science, see WP:RGW.
 * "Kraus thinks it’s likely that WHO’s designation will influence both future research in the U.S. and discussions about adding CSBD, or something similar, to future versions of the DSM."&mdash;that's a huge prediction, and it did not come true four years later.
 * Let me make a prediction: if DSM-6 won't endorse porn addiction, it will be dead in the water, medically speaking.
 * "Based on the limited current data, it would therefore seem premature to include it in the ICD-11" is speaking about problematic Internet use. Very easy to miss this point if you don't read the whole paragraph.
 * "The International Classification of Disorders 11 (ICD-11) rejected "pornography addiction" is not original research. WP:SOURCES have been WP:CITED in order to WP:V it. The claim is based upon WP:RS which are higher in the pecking order than an interview for a journal, including a book by a Christian full professor, published at a Christian publishing house. I don't WP:CENSOR the views of Christians who are talking sense.
 * If you disagree that the Ley source is reliable, take it to WP:RSN. But I warn you that the claim is based upon multiple WP:RS, and dropping Ley won't have much effect upon the text of this article.
 * So, it is WP:V that neither the ICD, nor the DSM recognize porn addiction. You could split hairs that the ICD does not deny that there could be porn addiction, but does not recognize it either. Science has spoken. We tell our readers this objective fact about medical science.
 * To tell it as it is, addiction is a term from the 1970s. Today it isn't a recognized diagnosis. tgeorgescu (talk) 12:04, 5 April 2024 (UTC)
 * The topic of sex and porn compulsive behaviors have certainly come up within the discussions prior to the publishing of those clinical manuals, the only objective fact here is that they, as of current day, don't recognize the diagnosis of any such condition. That doesn't mean those conditions are non-existent, as evident by this very article, along with those very discussions and debate that are readily available. Not to mention a cultural movement which would suggest otherwise.
 * I don't see any issue with letting readers know what "the science" (yes, those are scare quotes) says. Science evolves, and what was true yesterday isn't always what's true today. Additionally, as long as RS suggest that "the science" could be wrong, we should include that too per NPOV/BALANCE. Kcmastrpc (talk) 12:12, 5 April 2024 (UTC)
 * That "the science" could be wrong is a truism. Every educated person knows that science isn't infallible. That does not exempt Wikipedians from being epistemically responsible. tgeorgescu (talk) 12:15, 5 April 2024 (UTC)
 * I agree with your comment. In its current state, the article grossly violates WP:NPOV and is in a dire need of balancing. This article provides a one sided, pro porn view of the controversy and as such, will benefit greatly from presenting the opposing view of the pro porn version of the controversy and will aid in improving the objectivity of the article. Ducornius (talk) 16:45, 5 April 2024 (UTC)
 * As I said above, the situation is extremely asymmetrical, see WP:PSCI, WP:GEVAL, WP:ECREE, and WP:FRINGE. You might want to read those links, otherwise you're talking about stuff you don't know anything. I.e. your understanding of WP:NPOV is severely mistaken.
 * I also said that "science is fallible" does not mean an exemption from epistemic responsibility. It's not a warrant to play fast and loose with the scientific consensus or the medical consensus. The ICD has spoken, the DSM has spoken, "addiction" is a deprecated term, so there will never be such a diagnosis as "porn addiction". Neurosis, neurasthenia, and addiction aren't valid diagnoses in the 21st century. By definition a diagnosis of addiction is always bogus and won't be covered by your medical insurance.
 * I'm neither for nor against the diagnosis of CSBD. CSBD is all what the anti-porn side has got till now.
 * Hint: Wikipedia censors fringe views by design. Unless you will be cheerfully singing the hymn of "a mighty fortress is mainstream science" and "a mighty fortress is the medical orthodoxy", you won't like it here. This is not a website wherein we equate mainstream science/medical orthodoxy with fringe views.
 * As for the argument "porn addiction came with broadband internet": DSM-5-TR was written 20 years after broadband internet was introduced.
 * Ideally, Wikipedia renders the truth according to WP:CHOPSY. So, convince CHOPSY and Wikipedia will be offered to you on a golden plate. So, if your knowledge fails the CHOPSY test, we rightly shun it.
 * In other words, the resolutions of the Parliaments of those 16 US states have been written by lunatic charlatans, and we tell this for a fact.
 * We don't give equal validity to a book published by a full professor at Oxford University Press and the ravings of MAGA lunatics. tgeorgescu (talk) 11:16, 6 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Ascribing MAGAism to this contentious issue without considering the discourse taking place in the academic and professional community is about as WP:STRAWMAN as it gets. With regards to WP:CHOPSY, I'm under the impression that these topics have been, and still are, | widely and publicly debated in academia. Of course, we must rely on RS, and it's within the interest of our readers to cover that discourse so as to remain neutral.
 * Professionals who disagree with the current DSM framework are not, in fact, quacks. This isn't settled science, and we're not talking about flat earth conspiracy so applying WP:FRINGE to your argument is not only a stretch, it's kind of hilarious. I'm not arguing that we disregard the scientific communities findings altogether, but that we balance that with the ongoing dispute within the scientific and academic community while using reputable sources. Kcmastrpc (talk) 12:11, 6 April 2024 (UTC)
 * The debate is among systematic reviews indexed for MEDLINE (both requirements have to apply) or higher quality sources. We don't consider WP:PRIMARY studies or advocacy pieces.
 * And, trust me, there aren't many systematic reviews indexed for MEDLINE, from the past five years, which mention verbatim "pornography addiction". I would be amazed if I couldn't count them on my fingers. tgeorgescu (talk) 12:32, 6 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Are you suggesting that every source in this article meets such requirements and/or isn't an advocacy piece? What about this | source? Kcmastrpc (talk) 12:36, 6 April 2024 (UTC)
 * The information in our article does not stand or fall by citing Ley. There are several higher quality sources which make the same point. The only merit that that source has is that it told pretty early what higher quality sources told later. For two or three years, Ley was the only source I could find online. Why did I trust Ley? Because he is somewhat an insider to such disputes. Although he has a POV, he is intelligent, well-informed, and does not play fast and loose with the facts. So, even if the source is low on the pecking order, other sources have shown that it is a reliable source for the claim made. tgeorgescu (talk) 14:03, 7 April 2024 (UTC)
 * I disagree completely, it appears Ley, among other authors cited, are not considered academics in this field. Some of them are clinical psychologists promulgating a POV they've latched onto and are primarily known for their bias. This article is a complete mess and should probably be tagged as NPOV, however, I don't have the time nor understanding of what qualifies as a peer-reviewed MEDLINE article to balance this article. So, with that I'm going to drop a small rant and hope someone with a bit more time and expertise than I do can take up this work.
 * It's not Wikipedia's job to "debunk" anything, we should simply present that this is contentious topic, why it's contentious by presenting the arguments using reliable and peer reviewed sources. The fact is that the discussions leading up to the publishing of the latest DSM and other diagnostic manuals had lengthy debates around this topic, and researchers are still clamoring for more studies into this topic. This alone should be enough for any editor who isn't WP:NOTHERE to find sources to provide WP:BALANCE. Most notably, Ley and by cherry-picking Rothman you haven't convinced me that doing otherwise would be WP:FALSEBALANCE, find better sources or use the ones that already exist.
 * Sexual violence, partner violence, anxiety, depression, compulsive pornography use, and commercial sexual exploitation are public health problems, and there is a possibility that pornography exacerbates these problems. Given that possibility, we need to know more about whether, how, and why pornography influences social norms as well as individuals' behavior, and what we can do to address that if it is harmful. - Rothman, 2021 Kcmastrpc (talk) 12:38, 9 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Right, there is a possibility, i.e. no established scientific knowledge that affirms that for a fact.
 * WP:BIASED sources are not banned, unreliable sources are. I have shown above that Ley is reliable for the claim made. Among free to read sources, his article is still the most clear-cut commentary on the issue. And we use WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV, as required by WP:BIASED.
 * About : have you read the articles Acupuncture or Ayurveda? These articles clearly look like debunking to their adepts. tgeorgescu (talk) 16:55, 10 April 2024 (UTC)
 * The real question is if APA has to invent a diagnosis of "porn addiction", or the already well-established diagnoses are enough for treating compulsive masturbators (the medical folklore is that such cases are extremely rare). tgeorgescu (talk) 01:03, 4 March 2024 (UTC)
 * WP:BIASED sources are not banned, unreliable sources are. I have shown above that Ley is reliable for the claim made. Among free to read sources, his article is still the most clear-cut commentary on the issue. And we use WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV, as required by WP:BIASED.
 * About : have you read the articles Acupuncture or Ayurveda? These articles clearly look like debunking to their adepts. tgeorgescu (talk) 16:55, 10 April 2024 (UTC)
 * The real question is if APA has to invent a diagnosis of "porn addiction", or the already well-established diagnoses are enough for treating compulsive masturbators (the medical folklore is that such cases are extremely rare). tgeorgescu (talk) 01:03, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

Dr. Valerie Voon
Can i use her research Jm33746 (talk) 13:42, 25 March 2023 (UTC)


 * Same rules apply according to WP:MEDRS to her works, which apply to anyone else's works:
 * systematic literature review;
 * indexed for MEDLINE.
 * Higher quality sources are allowed, e.g. medical consensus statements from APA and WHO. But this is restricted to making medical claims, other works can be cited, as long as they are not making medical claims. Or as long as they explain/illustrate the points made by sources which pass WP:MEDRS.
 * Anyway, from DSM-5-TR (March 2022) we learn that the side which claims that there is such a thing as porn addiction lost the scientific dispute. I'm prepared to revise my statement when DSM-6 will be published, but that will be the last chance porn addiction has before being declared dead in the water. Since in the 2020s porn addiction is no longer a scientifically credible concept. According to WP:YESPOV, Wikipedia has to clearly declare that. tgeorgescu (talk) 09:32, 27 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Wired for Intimacy: How Pornography Hijacks the Male Brain ( Struthers, a neuroscientist) Jm33746 (talk) 23:28, 27 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Again, the medical consensus is pretty clear: there is no evidence that porn addiction exists. Any view opposing the medical consensus will be treated as WP:FRINGE.
 * "Struthers exposes false assumptions and casts a vision for a redeemed masculinity, showing how our sexual longings can actually propel us toward sanctification and holiness in our bodies." (emphasis mine). Sanctification and holiness are theology, neither psychology nor psychiatry. That makes his book non-science (no kidding!). Sanctification and holiness are the core business of your own church, and for your therapist it is a violation of their professional ethical code to meddle with theological issues. Any shrink or therapist could lose their license if they insist on sanctification and holiness with regard to their patients. Mental health professionals who listen to his advice will find themselves fired and unemployable. There's a limited number of jobs for fundamentalist porn addiction therapists, and hiring professionals would spoil their business. tgeorgescu (talk) 05:42, 5 April 2023 (UTC)
 * https://www.cam.ac.uk/research/news/brain-activity-in-sex-addiction-mirrors-that-of-drug-addiction 159.230.220.152 (talk) 16:21, 3 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Sure, sure... that was news in 2014. Did it persuade APA to change its mind? Judging by DSM-5-TR: no, it didn't. "Porn addiction" or even CSBD are not included in the DSM, not even as subjects for further study. tgeorgescu (talk) 07:42, 4 October 2023 (UTC)

Christian POV
I am not a Christian, but I don't think that Christian means "biased hack who cannot tell the truth".

If anything, Bowman is higher on the academic pecking order than Martinez-Gilliard and Dhuffar-Pottiwal. He seems to be in favor of a porn addiction diagnosis, nevertheless he recognizes the facts from ICD-11 for what they are.

So, yes, there are differences of opinion, but the hard facts (i.e. CBSD is no addiction) are not disputed. tgeorgescu (talk) 05:49, 28 July 2023 (UTC)


 * @Tgeorgescu: And what about this source? Potatín5 (talk) 10:55, 31 July 2023 (UTC)


 * It seems like a valid opinion. But we are discussing facts about ICD-11 vs. opinions about ICD-11. I have no WP:BALL to deny Bowman's claim that CSBD will be later recognized as an addiction. But we are not there yet. tgeorgescu (talk) 00:04, 1 August 2023 (UTC)
 * These being said, the DSM has deprecated the term "addiction", and that alone should tell you that "porn addiction" belongs to a bygone era of psychiatry. Addiction is so 1970. Neurosis, neurasthenia, and addiction are not 21st century psychiatric diagnoses. The public uses these terms a lot, but medical insurance companies do not cover such diagnoses. Any diagnosis of addiction, and the medical insurance won't pay your bill. The term "addiction" belongs to popular psychology, not to mainstream psychiatry. tgeorgescu (talk) 23:36, 26 August 2023 (UTC)
 * So, I don't think there is going to be a diagnosis of "sexual addiction" or "pornography addiction" because the term "addiction" is no longer used. And "sex OCD" and "porn OCD" seem like useless additions to OCD. APA is reluctant to adopt merely verbal tricks. tgeorgescu (talk) 11:22, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

Requested move 27 October 2023

 * The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. 

Pornography addiction → Compulsive sexual behaviour disorder – "Pornography addiction is not how the scientific community discusses this topic. The title suggests a consensus on the topic. A dedicated chapter in the Compulsive sexual behaviour disorder page named "Porn addiction" should be created. Forsen1337 (talk) 21:13, 27 October 2023 (UTC)


 * Did you mean to propose a merge of the two articles? Rotideypoc41352 (talk · contribs) 21:32, 27 October 2023 (UTC)
 * I thought about just adding it as a subcategory to the other article Forsen1337 (talk) 18:37, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Effects of pornography – related problems
Editors, the article Effects of pornography is largely written based on primary sources and promoting the claim that pornography addiction is a real phenomena. Best for experienced editors on this topic to begin working to improve the article to reflect scientific consensus, as the articles cover similar ground. Zenomonoz (talk) 08:02, 9 April 2024 (UTC)