Talk:Pornography addiction/Archive 1

Problems with the page/Cleanup
Why subjects lower than "Opponents of Pornography Addiction" don't appear on the page, and in the "edit page" they do? I don't know much editing on Wikipedia and I think one of you who knows should fix this problem.


 * Fixed it. A was missing.

People can edit it. - Can't touch

The Self Test
Hey, i'm removing the line: "Many informal "self-tests" have been written (for example, here), but do not appear to have been normed or statistically validated." from the beginning. Not only is it an unneccisary statement, but the site it links to seems to be one of very few self-tests available, and the site is incredibly religously charged. To say it hasn't been normed or statistically validated is an understatement, the website it links to is simply a checklist for yourself (not a 'self-test' at all).

NPOV
Is this NPOV?
 * Slight edit towards NPOV. More work needed. -- The Anome 17:13, 8 Sep 2003 (UTC)
 * This page has been edited enough to make it NPOV. 69.243.41.28 01:32, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)

No, it really hasn't. It's still blatantly POV. In my opinion, for what it's worth, but that seems to be the general idea of a bunch of people on the talk page. &mdash;Simetrical (talk) 22:48, 10 May 2005 (UTC)
 * I put the NPOV banner back up because this article is describing porn addiction as just an invention of moralists, while ignoring the empirical evidence that they are millions of people who have at least some trouble stopping, some of whom have a severe problem. 205.217.105.2 16:37, 11 May 2005 (UTC)
 * The fun part is that it seems to attack both masturbation (or at least masturbation using pornography as stimulus) AND sexual "deviations" ("The addict loses their perception of what is socially acceptable. Illegal material or those considered taboo, immoral, or repulsive seems "normal."" -- that's pretty POV because it implies anything that is not socially acceptable or simply not legal, is automatically a Bad Thing(TM), which just doesn't work given legislative and social relativity -- maybe the "deviation" isn't CREATED by the "addiction" but only discovered that way).
 * The concept of the porn addiction as stated in this article is unacceptably blurry and badly defined. This seems to be more of a description of moral decline caused by access to pornography rather than a serious description to a mental addiction in the psychological sense.
 * A disputed topic cannot be presented this way. The only "professional" sources seem to be American, and probably are heavily influenced by Western religions and ideologies.
 * If this article -- as is -- is labelled as NPOV, Wikipedia should be reconsidered. (Note: I am not saying it is impossible to get addicted to pornography, I'm just saying the "description" of this addiction is flawed by personal opinion -- even if the persons are academics) --Ashmodai 14:38, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * "they are [sic] millions of people who have at least some trouble stopping, some of whom have a severe problem." Well, see, that's exactly the reason many people find it hard to take "porn addiction" seriously.  Do some people have a severe problem with pornography?  Sure they do.  Some people also have a severe problem not going back and checking their car locks seven or eight times just to make sure they actually locked those doors.  This proves nothing about addictive qualities to car doors.  Meanwhile, the figure that "millions of people ... have at least some trouble stopping" is meaningless without presuming that they have good reason to stop.  of course, we have people who would swear up and down that pornography is inherently damaging, degrading, objectifying, promotes dental caries, etc...  the trouble is that they have very little hard scientific evidence to back it up, relying instead on dubious anecdotal evidence, including that provided by serial killers.  So if millions of people have no reason not to enjoy a good stress-relieving wank to the smut of their choice, it's not any wonder that they "have some trouble" stopping, it's a wonder that they waste their time trying. -- Antaeus Feldspar 23:28, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Unnamed series of studies
Removed from the article:


 * From an article entitled Subtle Dangers of Pornography:
 * In a series of studies, researchers observed numerous persistent changes in perceptions concerning sexuality and sexual behavior after repeated exposing (i.e., six 1-hours weekly sessions) volunteers to pornography. These include the trivialization of rape as a criminal offense, exaggerated perceptions of the prevalence of most sexual practices, increased callousness toward female sexuality and concerns, dissatisfaction with sexual relationships and diminished caring for and trust in intimate partners.

Can we have something other than a report of an un-named "series of studies" here? Cites of the actual studies would be a good first step. -- The Anome 08:00, 24 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Ted Bundy
Remaining in the article:


 * Before his execution Ted Bundy told how his consumption of violent pornography helped "shape and mold" his violence into "behaviour too terrible to describe". He said that he felt that violence in the media, "particularly sexualised violence", sent boys "down the road to being Ted Bundys".

I very much doubt that an endorsement from Bundy particularly advances the anti-porn position. -- The Anome 08:07, 24 Jun 2004 (UTC)


 * You'd be surprised how many anti-porn crusaders will trot this point out. Apparently, no endorsement is too out there.

For a discussion of Ted Bundy's interview, see the BBC Channel 4 documentary 'Natural Porn Killer,' (http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=2334295434685794228&q=Ted+Bundy) which basically argues that Ted Bundy faked this position and that the pornography-escalation was not a factor in precipitating his murders. There is, however, a study with rural communities that were gradually introduced to TV that show a drastic increase in violence within a year of having increased violent imagery (absent in neighboring communities that didn't get the TV yet). (Don't have time to look now but I found it cited on anti-TV sites.) Therefore, it seems to me in keeping with anecdotal evidence that pornography can facilitate or trigger violent excesses by people so disposed.

Evidence needed to back up statement
From the article (my emphasis):


 * Occasional exposure to nudity does not turn people into serial killers, however there is unpopular evidence that a small number of people who view pornography do develop addictions which lead to violent and anti-social behavior.

What evidence precisely? Cites, please. -- The Anome 08:11, 24 Jun 2004 (UTC)


 * Anome, thankyou for your edits and improvements. I wanted to add some useful information
 * about connections between pornography and violence, but did feel that some of it did
 * sound opinionated.


 * Comment 1. Unfortunately, the website does not cite the studies that were quoted.
 * Perhaps this is a good basis to remove them.


 * Comment 2. I found the quote from Ted Bundy to be insightful. I've also heard
 * David Berkowitz (now a born-again Christian) tell of how his pornography
 * addiction contributed to some of his behaviour - however could not find a website to cite
 * from (heard only on the radio). I don't think I included it to promote a certain
 * anti-porn position, just thought it was insightful.


 * Comment 3. I guess the only evidence I can give is that from the words of Ted and
 * David themselves. I might try searching for some websites another time to back these
 * up further.


 * Thanks again &mdash; SimonEast 05:02, 25 Jun 2004 (UTC)


 * I'm really not sure serial killers are the best people to be giving guidance about these matters; and I'm quite astonished that you consider their self-serving statements to be of any worth whatsoever. Isn't it remarkable how they become "born-again" after getting caught, rather than before, when it might have made a difference to their future victims? Also, I can't imagine ever wanting to consider myself to be on first-name terms with mass murderers I've never met. Eew. -- The Anome 22:47, May 11, 2005 (UTC)

Medlina links (mostly anti-porn)
[Added later] Found this page with many links (looks to be mainly anti-porn) with numerous quoted studies and essays. Some may have some reliable information, perhaps someone could look into them. http://www.medlina.com/pornography.htm

I would like to add a few words and see what comes back... a little background... i am writing a psychology paper on hypersexuality for school and i found this site. it is informative to have all of these opinions here to refer to for insite (im not gonna quote you or anything, but i wanted to thank you for the open talk) Thank you for writing out here what you feel inside.

I do think however that learning from anyone's mistakes is a big part of not ending up there yourself, so maybe we should listen to reformed serial killers advice (with caution, of course) more often. It is an important part of life to grow and learn. It's a plus that we don't have to be there ourselves inorder to benefit from the lesson.69.231.113.109 21:54, 10 November 2006 (UTC)Agatha

From a journalist...
As a journalist, it would be great if the person who wrote this article could possibly be objective. This is an encyclopedia which is supposed to be factual and objective. I did not come looking for this person's opinion. I came looking for some unbiast information to include in my newpaper article about pornography addiction.

Wikipedia needs to tighten up on its writers because they're slacking and it reflects badly on them.

Please, don't write to inform the public if you can't do right.

As a journalist, do you think you could learn to spell? Moreover, as a journalist do you think you could learn to contruct a sentence using English grammar correctly? I think your point is that this article isn't of a neutral view point. This is something already being discussed on this page with a view to rectification. ShizuokaSensei 00:29, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Point of view that pornography addiction doesn't exist
The article does not provide any arguments supporting the point of view:

"Not everyone believes that pornography addiction exists, or that the harmful effects ascribed to it are real." Nerd65536 05:15, 28 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * For every non-physiological addiction, you can find people who claim that it's not a
 * "real" addiction. I was talking to a friend just today who had that viewpoint about pornography
 * addiction, saying it was propaganda and comparing it to the belief that homosexuals can be
 * cured. 69.243.41.28 01:32, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * I'd like to add that "pornography addiction" is a concept that may be popular in some countries, but is nearly unheard of in many and ridiculued even among most people of Western countries. Most people who believe in it being a wide-spread issue also happen to think of masturbation, pornography and/or "sex-for-fun" as sinful or immoral acts, rendering their claims all but trustworthy.
 * Don't get me wrong, I believe humans can get addicted to nearly anything, but that doesn't mean everyone who oftenly does things which serve no logical purpose other than bringing pleasure in one way or another (masturbation, drinking alcohol, playing computer games) is addicted to it. Especially if the tendency to pursue such pleasure has evolutionary reasons (without masturbation and safer sex the Earth would probably have been turned uninhabitable already) and doesn't harm anyone (waste of time is hardly something you can consider harm).
 * I think a "masturbation addiction" is only present if the person cannot pursue their everyday life because of it, e.g. if someone feels he HAS to masturbate RIGHT NOW even if he is in a public place (where he would violate laws by pursuing that) or has to do something else that would be vital to his social life or career and still DOES it.
 * "Porn addiction" on the other hand would probably be less related to sexuality and more to a collecting obsession. The addiction would be the need to gather pornography by any means possible rather than acquiring it for actual use -- although that then would rather be an obsessive disorder than an actual addiction.
 * So either you are addicted to masturbation (although I think that "addiction" has too many negative connotations due to widespread hysteria about addictions -- especially amongst those who abstain from whatever thing the addiction is related to and thus see every possible use as wrong, stupid and irresponsible) or you are obsessed with pornography, although both may coincide.
 * I drink alcohol, but it doesn't dominate my lifestyle. I watch pornography, but I don't even spend money on it. I masturbate, but I can have a hard-on without having the instant obsession to get off. Addiction hysteria doesn't do much but waste your own time. Maybe you can get addicted to (obsessed with?) finding possible addictions and enlightening the world with your superior knowledge, too? --Ashmodai 23:25, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * totally agree james gibbon  1 July 2005 11:38 (UTC)


 * Partially agree, but what if a person really wants to stop wasting SO MUCH time on porn, but they are not able to stop, surely that at least smells like an addiction?


 * Exactly. It's completely irrelevant why I want to give up porn, the only thing that matters is that I want to give up porn and have so-far found it extremely difficult. The definition of "addiction" in the Oxford dictionary is "the fact or condition of being addicted to a particular substance, thing, or activity", and they use drugs and gambling as examples. It seems clear to me anyone who views porn regularly (daily in my case) is addicted. Wether or not that addiction is *harmful* is another issue entirely, but it's definitely an addiction. --203.206.11.30 16:13, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Scientific model for addiction
What is needed is to use a scientific model for addiction. The doctor cited in the article is but a single source. I'd recommend using the DSM-IV-TR criteria for addiction -- namely habituation and withdrawl. Some of the finer points are covered in the definition, but it's not neutral in this piece.

Translations
apart from a german article (which may need some work still) there is no similar wikipedia-article in any other language. Why not translate it and edit some articles in french, spanish, ... Go Ahead!--213.6.4.89 22:48, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Spam filter
Once again, the spam filter is malfunctioning and blocking a slew of sites that were already on the page, but now have been put on the blacklist. I had to disable all links to post new content. When they fix it, someone please go through and add an h to each link (i.e. ttp:// -> http://) 69.243.41.28 02:13, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Staggering naivete
From the article:
 * Another proposed criterion for diagnosis of online pornography addiction is that the user masturbates in front of the computer, while viewing the online porn.

Crikey! People using porn as an aid for masturbation? Surely not. I'm shocked, I tell you, shocked! I always thought they used it as a reference for figure drawing; pardon me whilst I adjust my entire world-view. -- The Anome 10:01, Apr 30, 2005 (UTC)


 * I take an anatomy class in college, and I use porn to study for tests. But masturbating?  That's just beyond sick. Superking 15:57, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * I can't stop laughing now. Thanks :-D Linuxbeak | Desk 03:05, May 17, 2005 (UTC)


 * Oh come on, it's a perfectly non-naive criteria. Stress on the "in front of, while viewing" part as opposed to "for sexual arousal", e.g viewing porn as an aid for having sex with a real life partner (like Al and Peg Bundy).

Well, here's a try
I agree the article needs a good bit of work, esp. on NPOV. I just gave it a try on the Diagnosis section. I took out the occasional loaded adective, but mostly added actual citations and quotations of domain experts. I dropped the quote of examples from Cline's criteria, because they looked silly taken totally out of context, while Cline's article (to which I added a cite) is considerably more reasonable as a whole. He talks mostly about cases where extreme use of pornography seriously impacts a person's life and relationships -- sounds just about like addiction to anything else -- alcohol, drugs, golf....

Anyway, here's hoping adding some specifics and references improves the entry some.

Sderose 23:42, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Online pornography addiction section
I removed that section, because it seems redundant to me. Although it makes sense to include information about how the internet may have exacerbated the pornography addiction problem, the section didn't do that very well. It only described online pornography addiction as somehow a subset of pornography addiction. This is about as useful as having a section entitled "Beer Addiction" in an article on alcoholism. The Amazing Superking July 4, 2005 02:09 (UTC)


 * Well, if there was a substantial contingent of those addressing the problem of alcoholism who believed that beer was somehow particularly addictive, then it would in fact be useful to reflect exactly that fact (and of course, by 'fact' I mean the fact that some people believe it.) I personally believe that it, along with the notion that there's more than a meager population of people who could truly be described as porn addicts, is complete BS.  But I can't justify eliminating the fact that among those who do believe that porn warps your brain, many and perhaps most of them believe that Internet porn warps your brain at the speed of light.  I'm restoring that section, and since I think Everyking's version of the intro actually reads smoother, that as well. -- Antaeus Feldspar 4 July 2005 14:39 (UTC)

Semantic problem, redux
I think the disagreement here is between the people who use the primary meaning of "addiction" ("Compulsive physiological and psychological need for a habit-forming substance" -- American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition), and those who believe that the secondary meaning ("The condition of being habitually or compulsively occupied with or or involved in something.") justifies the use of the word to describe avid use of pornography, and make no distinction between the two meanings. The second definition of "addiction" ("habit or compulsion") is figurative and could be used to mean "to have a habit" in just about any situation ("I'm addicted to flying kites", "might as well face it, you're addicted to love").

This second usage is metaphorical, like saying "I'm starving", when you mean "I'm hungry". Now, in a medical context, starvation is well-defined: it involves lack of food to the point of illness or death. The secondary usage of "starving" is not literal, and should not be confused with the first.

Similarly, addiction has a precise meaning in a medical context. In my opinion, the first meaning is the correct one when we are talking about medical matters: it is well defined and very specific ("physiological and psychological", "habit-forming substance").

However, once you begin to conflate the two meanings, you start to blur meaning to the point of nonsense. Suggesting that addiction(2) is synonymous with addiction(1), simply because the two senses share a common word, is just as careless as suggesting that starving(2) is the same as starving(1), and leads to the same sort of logical error.

Now, there's nothing wrong in principle with the concept of excessive use of pornography, and nothing wrong with suggesting that it is a problem, or that something could, or should, be done about it (although that clearly is, and should be reported as, a POV). It's just that we just shouldn't call it an "addiction".

Now, I know that some people do consider that addiction(2) to pornography use is actually driven by a form of internal chemical addiction(1). While this does not involve the logic error above, this is a strong that is far from being a mainstream medical or scientific view. Exceptional claims in general require exceptional evidence; for NPOV, this should require both detailed cites of sources for this POV, and the evidence they cite for these claims. Unfortunately, ising the word "addiction" in the title of this article begs the question, and blurs the issue at the outset.

As a first attempt to resolve this, I suggest this article should be renamed to something that does not contain the word "addiction": perhaps "excessive use of pornography"? The article could then discuss the issue, including the contentious one as to whether high levels of pornography use actually do involve a form of internal chemical addiction(1), not to mention whether it is possible to define what "excessive" means in this context, without begging the question in the title. -- The Anome 09:09, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

No. The word 'addiction' is fine in this context. A gambling addication and a heroin addiction are very different problems, yet our calling them both addiction does not cause us any confusion. The term 'excessive' is not much use: last week I looked at several hours worth of porn. I had time, it did not cost me much it was not a problem. This week I have looked at less porn yet have just decided its a problem. The fact I am not able to control my behaviour is the problem. The question of whether or not it's excessive is a red herring.

This article MUST be redone without the christain moralizing. (As others have allready stated) All of the links are to religious websites, whose typical solution is:  "put your faith in God and respect sex as his gift to humanity." -- I can promise that this will be met with derision by most of the people who come to this article looking for help. Such overt moralizing deminishes the credibilty of the project. People have decided want help to give up, want help to give up -- not cohercing into your church while they are down.

Most of the problems attributed to porn are also prevailent in other activities. (Eg. Porn and domestic violence Vs Hollywood and violence, ...or... Porn and the exploitation of women Vs the cosmetic industry and the exploitation of women.) There are lots of others... Okay, so these are problems, but their nature is complex and not relevent to the addict. Not because the addict is callous and uncaring, but by the time he has searched wiki for 'Porn Addict' he has allready decided he wants to give up, and is looking for methods by which he can achieve this not further demonisation.

-Will (Editors: I would like a gap here to seperate my contribution from the one below.)

There are a few problems, not the least of which is the fact that the subject of porn itself is still taboo. People suffering from porn addiction would be afraid to come forward because such activity strongly insinuates deep lacking in real-world affection and sexuality, which I'm sure anyone experiencing would find utterly shameful and humiliating. It also doesn't help that the other side is a multi-billion dollar industry hell bent on not mere survival, but expansion and indeed mainstream distribution. (One could cite any number of articles covering the recent xxx domain controversy to hear the pornographers' side of the story.) So while the industry can afford to propagate their contention that there is no such thing as porn addiction, the addict suffers in reclusivity. In the meantime, just do a Pubmed search on the topic and you'll discover at least a few WELL WRITTEN, ACADEMIC articles. Reading those articles, this discussion--as well as the article itself--should veer from semantics and opinion, to enumerating the facts and evidence that are currently available.


 * If it's possible to "discover at least a few WELL WRITTEN, ACADEMIC articles" then discover them. It's not going to achieve much to just assert here that such articles exist (interspersed, of course, with lots of comments about "the industry can afford to propagate their contention" while "the addict" (presumed to exist) "suffers in reclusivity." (slanted language?  noooo!  I'm sure no one would ever use slanted language to try and smear "the pornographers"!) -- Antaeus Feldspar 23:37, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Antaeus Feldspar, you sound rather bitter, and consequently a bit irrational. "Do some people have a severe problem with pornography? Sure they do. Some people also have a severe problem not going back and checking their car locks seven or eight times just to make sure they actually locked those doors. This proves nothing about addictive qualities to car doors." You're confusing Obsessive Compulsive Disorder with addiction. And your point of view is essentially conspiratory and/or mearly antagonistic: "A disputed topic cannot be presented this way. The only "professional" sources seem to be American, and probably are heavily influenced by Western religions and ideologies." First of all, I think the article makes quite clear that the topic is disputed, and it actually reads biased against the notion of porn addiction. Second, let's keep in mind that for a long time, no one thought smoking was harmful, and it wasn't even until relatively recently that the cigarette manufacturers conceeded that their products are addicting. Also look at the asbestos industry, or I should say the asbestos litigation industry -- attorneys continue making millions off companies who knew their products were harmful but did little to nothing to protect employees and consumers. Even before that, it took quite some time to build consensus that asbestos exposure is indeed harmful. So it is not unreasonable to assume that the true prevalence of porn addiction, whether negligible or significant, will take quite some time to come to light as well, especially considering the reclusive nature of the activity itself, compared with the social nature of drinking and smoking. You're also guilty of what you accuse others of: "But then we must also acknowledge a fact that this case makes clear: "very real" does not mean "very prevalent". This is exactly the logical leap that most people who talk about the seriousness of "pornography addiction" blithely jump right over: "You cannot deny that somewhere, out of the 6.5 trillion people on this planet, some of them have what can be classed as a porn addiction." Where did you get that quote? It's not in this discussion, and it's not in the article itself, either. No one was making that leap. And I've never heard anyone making that leap in conversation about the topic. You also claim "the trouble is that they have very little hard scientific evidence to back it up, relying instead on dubious anecdotal evidence, including that provided by serial killers." As per the former, you're confusing published case studies for anecdotal evidence (unless you didn't know such case studies exist -- http://ajp.psychiatryonline.org/cgi/content/full/158/10/1590 for example). As per the latter, you're equating sworn-in self-testamony with anectodal hearsay. So quit playing devil's advocate, especially since the article actually reads biased towards your opinion, and keep an open mind while research continues.

"such activity [viewing porn] strongly insinuates deep lacking in real-world affection and sexuality" Hmmm? Is that your own (unhelpfull and moralising) point of veiw? Isnt such moralising the whole problem here? It is possible that you are putting constraints on your own perception of reality and sexuality. - will

That should do it for now
I got rid of all the baseless, unreferenced opinions and kept it simple. Others may add to it as necessary, but please, let's keep it informed. Let's keep it to what we know, not what we would like to think. It's a very heated topic, with a multi-billion dollar business on one side, and consumers--from the happily casual to the disturbingly obsessed--on the other. Keep it real, and keep it civil. If you can't find at least one solid reference for your statement, don't bother writing.

I see the Wiki Nazis are hard at work
Almost as soon as I rid this article of the rambling, biased, unreferenced banter, a Wiki Nazi replaced my unbiased, referenced edit with the same old garbage. First of all, let's be honest--making statements and appending "citation needed" is a cop out for laziness, or simply opinion (i.e., POV in Wiki-geek-speak). Second of all, I'd like to know what is biased about "Regardless of opinion, it is important to acknowledge that scientific research on this subject is in its infancy, and it is thus premature at this point in time to draw definitive conclusions." And what's biased about citing several articles published in peer-reviewed scientific journals? This is in stark contrast to the opinionated, ambiguous, and unsubstantiated statementes in the current version. For example, "While some believe that it does exist, it can be argued that the majority of people who view and enjoy pornography, like the majority who enjoy any activity, will probably never encounter the harmful effects attributed to it when it is viewed habitually." Indeed, the article is now once again riddled with assertions qualified merely by "citation needed," not to mention cynicism, like putting the term pornography addiction in quotes.

When I used to only read articles on this site, I enjoyed it. But now that I've actually participated, it's obvious to me that Wikipedia is a forum, parading as an encyclopedia. Anyone and everyone can post a topic, assert their own opinions, and shrudge off responsibility with cop outs like "citation needed." Having an arbitrary, ambiguous rule set and an arbitrary award system doesn't help. Wiki is a sad excuse for rigorous academia and scientific research. (BTW, reading some authors' profile pages containing past arguments, it's painfully clear that some "Wikipedians" have an agenda.)

I see where this article is going, and I'll have no further part of it (much to the Wiki Nazis' delight, I imagine). Hey, while you're at it, why don't add icons and smileys to the forum! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.44.110.223 (talk • contribs)


 * Hi! I'm the "nazi" who reverted your work, and I stand by my decision.  You gutted the article, removing the good and bad alike.  This is a step backwards, so I undid it.  And I'd undo it again.  Thank you for understanding. Al 18:55, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

When an article is so biased, cynical, poorly referenced, and poorly written, it is better to wipe the slate clean and start anew with a well-written, fair, and well-referenced introduction. I had made it clear in my comment that my entry was to be used as an exemplary starting point. Good luck trying to doctor this pathetic entry, as I'm sure you remember going through similar pains when drafting papers in school. Like I said, I've lost faith in this forum and won't be touching the article again. So knock yourself out!


 * Regarding the question about why the sentence using terms "While some people believe" and "it can be argued" seems to fit the definition of WP:AWW Avoid Weasel Words. The issue is that it's important for readers to know just who is making a claim and not doing so can make reading confusing and leave readers with questions about evidence. For example, I could argue the statement that that 'some people believe' or 'it can be argued' that Alienus is the cause of cancer, is a true statement you probably would want a little more evidence behind the claim. :) Antonrojo 02:44, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

More Citation Needed of Skepticism
I believe that the section on skepticism needs additional research. The section as it stands now includes flawed logic, i.e. people believe that because some individuals can view pornography and lead regular lives, there is no such thing as pornography addition. However, the same arguement can be made against other forms of addition, with illegical conclusion: many people can have a single drink or an occasional cigarrette, but this does not mean that there is no such thing as alcoholism or cigarrette addiction. I understand that this flawed logic is held by many individuals, but it should be called what it is.

Further, there are serious criticisms of pornography addition that are being ignored. For example, there is the argument that the term "addiction" (i.e. chemistry based) is less appropriate than "compulsion" (i.e. behaviorally/pyschologically based). The article on general sexual addition includes many appropriate studies that can be cross-referenced.

I think "some individuals" is an understatement, I'd rather call it 95% of all male teenagers, and so far, I have yet to see any significant effects of this "addiction". This is a joke, whats next, TV addiction? Reading addiction? 212.30.218.14 (talk) 02:54, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Well addiction takes its form in almost any activity and is typically defined as an unhealthy or unnatural obsession or consumption. Everyone eats every day - but we are not addicted until this habit becomes abusive. So given that pornography addiction is a reality for many people - actually I believe that pornography is pretty evil and does not serve any purpose for myself that is not socially detrimental. I think that pornography is a very poor example or attempt at art - there are artistic elements however this fails to be anything but a perversion of sexual activity. Humans are naturally inclined to pursue sexual encounters - this is instinct. Pornography purely pervades and misleads people into a pseudo sexual experience. Pornography can be used on a therapeutic basis to treat couples with sexual performance problems or individuals with other psychological or physical disorder. However it is not a tool that could be reasonably used to enhance or encounter true intimacy. This is all based on private sexual research. The internet is no place to learn about sexuality. When in all fairness it should be! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jtsu4232625 (talk • contribs) 13:13, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

No research done claim
After a little searching I found several studies linked here. I think that whether these are really 'scientific' or 'valid' studies is a matter for discussion but that SOME research has been done should be mentioned. The connections between media depictions and violence and pornography and crime or psychological dysfunction is a popular and controversial area of research in social science. Antonrojo 02:44, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

I could not find anything for this claim either

people with this disorder need to stop watching pornographic material for at least 3 months to fully recover from this disorder- Arron Bordinhio pHD in sex studies, MD in physiological sciences.

The p in PHD is not capitalized and the information is questionable as well as the doctors existence. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fade2black 81 (talk • contribs) 22:22, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Merge with Sexual addiction ?
Merge with Sexual addiction, Cybersex???

Merge -- I think it should be
I made some edits today to try to neutralize it. I really do think it should be either merged with or made a sub-heading of sexual addiction, because a porn addict is a sex addict. Porn addiction is simply a method of acting out, as is compulsive masturbation or serial cheating, etc. I have been working in this field for over 8 years and while I can understand the religious fervor over it, it really should be treated as a medical issue, not a sociological or religous one. Regardless of whether or not you want to defend or end porn, the fact is that pornography addiction is defined by a compulsive use of it to the detriment of one's life (ie. time, money, and suffering relationships). As with any other substance/activity, some people can use it without any problems and some cannot. --Madmumbler 19:30, 4 August 2006 (UTC) MadMumbler.

Agree that articles should be merged. I reverted your attempt to NPOV the article. I can see why you made this effort, but it had the unfortunate effect of littering the article with even more weasel words (see WP:WEASEL). What this article desperately needs in any NPOVing attempt is material deriving from reputable sources WP:RS --Pathlessdesert 14:08, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

I think not, scientifically the addictions are simaler, but a lot of (unscientific) discussion about pornography addiction cannot be grouped with sexual addiction. 206.116.159.199 07:15, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

I respect your opinion but in my own opinion I do not think it should be merged, there are different types of sex addicts and different types of programs for each. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Myoceanlife1962 (talk • contribs) 05:18, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Dobson is no expert on anything except fundamentalist opportunism
I think that the article needs to be thoroughly overhauled, and the references to fascist theocratic demagogues like James Dobson put in their appropriate context: that of a powerful, politically-connected opportunist cashing in on a real social problem to promote his own reactionary, fundamentalist agenda in a most insidious and intimate way.

These so-called "religious" approaches to the problem of porn addiction are fundamentally and irretrievably flawed not because of the broader political agenda behind them, however; they are flawed because they have no basis whatsoever in science--in empiricial observation or serious theoretical consideration. They are an outgrowth rather of a particular ideology that also considers homosexuality deviant and sinful, and that promotes and enforces a subservient role for women. Dobson and others fit the facts to this agenda. There's no way that they can be held accountable to any rigorous, reality-based analysis of the phenomenon of porn addiction, which certainly needs to be understood more fully, because they ultimately reject any standard of measurement that is based in reality rather than their own narrow, hateful brand of Christianity.

They should not be thought of or portrayed as an expert in this or any other matter. If they are included at all, it should be as a footnote showing the kind of dangerous and insidious opportunism that has attached itself to this issue.

-Huh?

Disagree, just because his views are unscientific doesn't mean his words hold no influence. Just find some scientists that disagree, and mention that. 206.116.159.199 07:19, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Merge Sexual addiction with Pornography addiction?
Information is repeated in both places. I guess sexual addiction should be considered as the main article. Other types of sexual addiction (e.g. Pornography addiction, cybersex, etc) should refer back to Sexual addiction when the same information applies to both of them and focus only on what is specific in this particular behavior.

Saaraleigh 19:48, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Weak Disagree. I lean towards thinking that the sexual addiction article is already fairly big and that when the pornography-specific elements are added to Sexual addiction it may push it over the top.  Not to mention, that article might then have an disproportionate amount of pornography related material not related to the other forms (sex, masturbation, cybersex).  I suspect that, if Pornography addiction is indeed seen as a subset of Sexual addiction, the best solution is to refine Pornography addiction to refer back to Sexual addiction and for Sexual addiction to have a brief pornography summary and have a "Main article" link.  More work, but I think it would be better than mashing it all into Sexual addiction. - BalthCat 22:04, 7 September 2006 (UTC)


 * I agree with BalthCat on this one. Pornography addiction seems like a logical subset of sex addiction, but there appears to be some debate as to whether it is strictly sex addiction; namely, that some say it's a subset of Obsessive Compulsive Disorder (I see no evidence cited for this, but the debate is there anyway). Therefore, a short summary and a link to this article in the sexual addiction article, and refine this one. --71.192.64.235 20:14, 17 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I agree with Saaraleigh. I wrote a treatment section for Internet pornography in my head then looked at similar section for sexual addiction and found that it was almost word for word what I was planning on writing. I don't see a need to duplicate the efforts. Stillwaterising (talk) 17:28, 17 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Sexual addiction has more to do with an addiction to the chemicals released during orgasm. Pornography addicts are addicted to the visual stimulation, with or without orgasm. Sex addicts are addicted solely to the orgasm, with or without visual stimulation. They are two different things and thus deserve two different topics. -- Charles Stover 09:01, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

disagree. i think we are getting confused here, a sexual addiction article would be about addictions that are sexually related, not just addiction to sex. masturbation to porn is definitely sexual. i think there should be a small subsection in the sexual addiction section and a link to here. i dont know a lot about the rules here, but im sure theres an article called "cars" and then subsets of articles for different types of cars, different makes etc. sexual addiction should be sort of the core article to all sexual addictions in the same way the cars article is for different types of cars. Hoginford (talk) 00:10, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

yes that's a thought...
It's late... and i'm sick and tired of pouring over endless amounts of biased and non NPOV topics deemed 'morally incorrect' and thus censored, warped, and made to hold up as a fake wikified 'article' by people who say "HEY!, go ahead and read this inaccesible non easily peer reviewable book that also costs a bundle and might not be available in your local library!, WP:BE BOLD

you know what I say?

__________________

yes.. .that's right!

I think that we need EXPERTS to help review, and fix up this article A LOT!. It's obviously almost completely biased against pornography, is FILLED iethl inks bloating the dangers of it, and the only thing that doesn't rant against this source of sexual arousal are a few statements from a long forgoteen, probably outdated, and equally inaccessible book as lost as that book on psychosexual infatilism by Sigmund Freud or whoever he was.........

I'll try and fix it up a bit, and i say!, don't give up i n the fight to make wikipedia a valuable source of info that presents nuetral points of view!, if it has one sides POV, then it must have an equal amount from the OTHER side, all of whose information must be backed up and not in a tome deep inside the old rat's hut in the heart of far away and distant riverwood forest.

Am i making myself clear? Nateland 09:04, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

About the leading pornography addiction 'expert' I hate to use a little POV but these sources CAN be claimed dubious... just READ the page on James Dobson. You'd think a few of these groups in favor of getting rid of pornography would be against HIM!. for what he says....

Dobson believes homosexuality can be cured in adults and prevented in children, and is an opponent of the gay rights movement. Focus on the Family sponsors a monthly conference called “Love Won Out,” where many of the speakers are self-professed ex-gays. Held around the U.S., the conference encourages its attendees to believe that "homosexuality is preventable and treatable."[2] According to critics, Focus on the Family asserts that there is a "homosexual agenda" and associates gays with pedophilia.[2]

In his book, Bringing Up Boys, Dobson writes that "Homosexuals deeply resent being told that they selected this same-sex inclination in pursuit of sexual excitement or some other motive.[5]

However, Dobson does not believe that homosexuality is genetic. In his June 2002 newsletter, he states: "There is further convincing evidence that homosexuality is not hereditary. For example, since identical twins share the same chromosomal pattern, or DNA, the genetic contributions are exactly the same within each of the pairs. Therefore, if one twin is 'born' homosexual, then the other should inevitably have that characteristic too. That is not the case. When one twin is homosexual, the probability is only 50 percent that the other will have the same condition. Something else must be operating."

James Dobson is a promoter of patriarchal marriage. He believes men have the divine obligation to lead their families, and women have the divine obligation to submit to their husband's authority. As such he supports the conservative Christian men's organization Promise Keepers, which also believes women should submit to the authority of their husbands. He believes that mothers with any children under the age of eighteen ought not to work outside the home, if finances and temperaments permit them to stay home.[4] Views on corporal punishment and authority

In his pamphlet, Dare to Discipline Dobson advocated the spanking of children of up to eight years old when they misbehave, but warns that "corporal punishment should not be a frequent occurrence" and that "discipline must not be harsh and destructive to the child's spirit." He does not advocate what he considers harsh spanking because he thinks "It is not necessary to beat the child into submission; a little bit of pain goes a long way for a young child. However, the spanking should be of sufficient magnitude to cause the child to cry genuinely."[3]

Dobson recognizes the dangers of child abuse, and therefore considers disciplining children to be a necessary but unpleasant part of raising children that should only be carried out by qualified parents: "Anyone who has ever abused a child -- or has ever felt himself losing control during a spanking -- should not expose the child to that tragedy. Anyone who has a violent temper that at times becomes unmanageable should not use that approach. Anyone who secretly 'enjoys' the administration of corporal punishment should not be the one to implement it." [2]

In his book The Strong-Willed Child, Dobson suggests that by correctly portraying authority to a child, the child will understand how to interact with other authority figures: "By learning to yield to the loving authority... of his parents, a child learns to submit to other forms of authority which will confront him later in his life — his teachers, school principal, police, neighbors and employers."[4]

Dobson stresses that parents must uphold their authority and do so consistently, comparing the relationship between parents and disobedient children to a battle: "When you are defiantly challenged, win decisively."[3] In The Strong-Willed Child, Dobson draws an analogy between the defiance of a family pet and that of a small child, and concludes that "just as surely as a dog will occasionally challenge the authority of his leaders, so will a little child — only more so.[3] (emphasis in original)

When asked "How long do you think a child should be allowed to cry after being punished? Is there a limit?" Dobson responded:

"Yes, I believe there should be a limit. As long as the tears represent a genuine release of emotion, they should be permitted to fall. But crying quickly changes from inner sobbing to an expression of protest... Real crying usually lasts two minutes or less but may continue for five. After that point, the child is merely complaining, and the change can be recognized in the tone and intensity of his voice. I would require him to stop the protest crying, usually by offering him a little more of whatever caused the original tears. In younger children, crying can easily be stopped by getting them interested in something else."[3]

Now i really think that with a man who hoists POV opninions over his shoulder, makes claims which themselves are not proven to have worked and IF and WHEN they did failed 90% of the time.... well....

I think the section on Dobson should be removed.

P.S. MERELY complaining?, and all of those irrelevant links on recovering from pornography addiction.... --_________--

Dobson, "opponents" out
I'm going to get rid of the irrelevant section on James Dobson's point of view. Are there any other Wikipedia articles about OCD-related issues that devote a section to a specific expert's perspective on the topic? This has nothing to do with whether or not porn addiction is real and everything to do with Dobson's opposition to all porn/erotica. Also, I'm changing "opposition" to "skeptics," since we're not talking about people opposed to addiction but people skeptical of the concept of addiction. Jamiem 18:17, 7 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm reverting your change as Dobson is a licensed doctor of psychology and his opinion on the issue is invaluable. I do like the change from "opponents" to "skeptics," however. Jinxmchue 20:58, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Dobson is an extremist POV pusher. He is not a reliable source, and so he cannot be used to cite this article. — coe l acan — 15:24, 9 March 2007 (UTC)


 * That is your POV. Jinxmchue 20:01, 9 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Yeah, crazy people do get PhDs sometimes. Licensed or not, the man it absolutely lunatic fringe. Here's his advice for "preventing homosexuality": "'Meanwhile, the boy's father has to do his part. He needs to mirror and affirm his son's maleness. He can play rough-and-tumble games with his son, in ways that are decidedly different from the games he would play with a little girl. He can help his son learn to throw and catch a ball. He can teach him to pound a square wooden peg into a square hole in a pegboard. He can even take his son with him into the shower, where the boy cannot help but notice that Dad has a penis, just like his, only bigger.'" Emphasis mine. Extremist sources can only be used in articles about themselves, and then only very carefully. — coe l acan — 22:24, 9 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Your POV is showing. Jinxmchue 19:22, 10 March 2007 (UTC)


 * As is yours. But it doesn't matter what either of our POVs are. Reliability of sources can and must be judged regardless. Let's look at the sources here.
 * "Life on the Edge", ISBN 0-8499-0927-9, is from W Publishing Group, an imprint of Thomas Nelson (publisher), a conservative Christian publisher. They publish according to ideological criteria, but there's no indication that they have any informed oversight into scientific claims put forth by Dobson. This work by Dobson doesn't appear to have been published in any journals, reputable or not. There's no indication that it's been peer-reviewed. In short, there's no indication that this is anything but pseudoscience, and there's no reliable sourcing for these claims.
 * "Love Must Be Tough", ISBN 1-59052-355-5, is published by Multnomah Publishers, a conservative Evangelical Christian publisher. Again, they print books by ideological scope, and there's no sign that they have scientific oversight over the claims being put forth here. Again, this has not been published in a peer-reviewed journal. No indication of anything except pseudoscience. These are not reliable sources. They cannot be used to cite this article. I'm taking them out. — coe l acan — 21:29, 10 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Whoop-dee-shiznit. I don't see anything in the Wiki policy on RS that discounts material because of a publishers ideological stance. If this were so, there's a hell of a lot of changes that needs to be made on countless Wiki articles. Jinxmchue 05:11, 11 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Nope, but the question is whether these sources are based on scientific research. If the answer is no, we have to ask why prominent space in this article is being given to one guy's non-scientific belief on the matter? Mdwh 05:14, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Prove that it is not based on science and we can discuss that. In the meantime, assuming that this is "one guy's non-scientific belief" is just that: an assumption. Jinxmchue 05:17, 11 March 2007 (UTC)


 * The burden of proof is upon the one who wants material included in the article. Otherwise we could include all sorts of random people's beliefs, claiming it's up to someone to prove them non-scientific! Mdwh 05:21, 11 March 2007 (UTC)


 * The burden of proof has already been met. Dobson is a licensed psychologist and has published materials on the issue. That you or someone else doesn't personally agree with his views on pornography does not make them non-scientific. And that is the only basis for which I see people trying to remove this material. "He's a lunatic! His publishers have a ideology I don't agree with!" That's about it. I simply cannot believe this discussion has gone this far. Wiki policy does not back people's personal dislikes. It does back notable people, experts in various fields (e.g. psychology), published materials, etc. Jinxmchue 06:48, 11 March 2007 (UTC)


 * The burden of proof has not been met. From WP:RS: "A questionable source is one with no editorial oversight or fact-checking process or with a poor reputation for fact-checking. ... Questionable sources may only be used in articles about themselves."  His publishers do not have any fact-checking of the scientific claims Dobson is making. Thus, these are not reliable sources. I'm removing the content again. It's not peer-reviewed, so there's no reliability to it. — coe l acan — 11:18, 11 March 2007 (UTC)


 * What is your proof of any of that? Provide it and you will justify your removal of the material. Jinxmchue 14:25, 11 March 2007 (UTC)


 * The question is not whether he is a psychologist - there must be surely plenty of psychologists who have an opinion on porn, but we don't list that here. The question is what research was this based on? It might make sense to have a section on psychologists' views, but then this should be representative of all psychologists, and not just him.


 * I also think a problem is the last paragraph, in that it goes into an attack on all pornography, which is not relevant here. So at the least, any inclusion in this article should be limited to the supposed effects of pornography addiction - but as I say, I'm curious what scientific research this was based on. Mdwh 15:53, 11 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I agree, and would suggest moving the information to his article would be most appropriate. The problem isn't the information itself, it's putting it here. Is the viewpoint based on research, or a viewpoint? If the former, then the research should be listed. His views belong on his own page - consider, we don't have sections for his views on homosexuality in the homosexuality article, and so on, do we? Mdwh 17:03, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

I disagree with including the material - why is his belief on the matter notable for this article? Why don't we also include his position on homosexuality in that article, for example?

Also if you do wish to put it in, please don't remove the merge tag - I have started the discussion already in talk, see my comment above. Mdwh 05:19, 11 March 2007 (UTC) If you are putting
 * Ah. I was expecting an actual separate discussion with its own header. Perhaps that should be done to avoid further confusion. (And it should be done on the talk page for Dobson's article as that is where the link in the merge box goes to.) Jinxmchue 06:51, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I've put a note in the Dobson's article now, letting people know of this discussion. Mdwh 15:53, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

I see that the Dobson material is still gone. Does this mean the matter is settled to everyone's satisfaction? Jamiem 15:31, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Not really, but I'm tired of fighting with OWNers. Jinxmchue 15:52, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
 * That's the pissiest version of WP:CONS ("Consensus does not mean that everyone agrees with the outcome; instead, it means that everyone agrees to abide by the outcome.") that I've seen, but hey, I'll take it. - Thespian 17:11, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

the burden of peer review
(Copied from above to avoid further indenting): What is your proof of any of that? Provide it and you will justify your removal of the material. Jinxmchue 14:25, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
 * You've got it backwards. But while we're here I happen to know a curious aside about Thomas Nelson Publishing that I'd like to share... the CEO of Thomas Nelson says that the only "editorial standards" are that authors must assent to the Nicene Creed and Philippians 4:8. Wow! Doesn't that speak volumes? Anyway, you've got it backwards. Maybe you're not familiar with the peer review process, but a scientific claim is not reliably sourced unless it has been printed in a peer-reviewed scientific journal. It's up to you to show that Dobson's supposed findings here have been subjected to the peer review process of some reliable journal. If that can't be demonstrated, then there's no reason to believe that he's done anything but simply jot down his shower musings and send them off to his publishers. — coe l acan — 04:23, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

way too many external links
Most of the external links were not reliable sources. Here are the ones I removed: That's a span of eight diffs, each one has an edit summary relating to the particular reason for that removal, for anyone who's wondering. — coe l acan — 17:13, 9 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I greatly disagree with many of your removals. For example, there is nothing in WP:EL against links to internet ministries. Also, Dobson is an authority and a reliable source as he has a doctorate in psychology. It seems to me that you are removing these things based on your personal distaste for who and what they represent. Jinxmchue 20:06, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Internet ministries are all self-published sources without editorial oversight, and thus not reliable sources per WP:RS. So no internet ministries, sorry. And I've addressed Dobson in the above section. — coe l acan — 22:27, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Whew! Just got rid of 19KB of off-topic stuff (anything not discussing alteration to the article). Now I'm going to archive for length. — coe l acan — 23:39, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Done, and a diff: the difference between this page and the archive is only what remains here. — coe l acan — 23:58, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I think you are misusing WP:RS for this section. See WP:EL (section 3) for more information. Jinxmchue 17:03, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

All three of these sites are run by Pure Community Ministries. The purpose of them is to convert people to Christianity ("We believe this vision is best carried out through authentic fellowship with Jesus Christ and His people") and bring those who are already Christians around to the "right" way of thinking ("[We] don't allow users to debate the morality of porn").

Let's look at WP:EL's "What should be linked", in full:
 * 1) Articles about any organization, person, web site, or other entity should link to the official site if any.
 * 2) *This does not apply, this article is not about an entity. "Pornography addiction" does not have an official website.
 * 3) An article about a book, a musical score, or some other media should link to a site hosting a copy of the work if none of the "Links normally to be avoided" criteria apply.
 * 4) *This does not apply, this article is not about a product or other tangible or digital noun.
 * 5) Sites that contain neutral and accurate material that cannot be integrated into the Wikipedia article due to copyright issues, amount of detail (such as professional athlete statistics, movie or television credits, interview transcripts, or online textbooks) or other reasons.
 * 6) *Are these sites neutral? No. They are Christian ministries for the purpose of converting people to believe in Jesus. Do they have accurate material? They actually don't appear to have material at all; rather, they are just online forums with a bunch of people talking about a bunch of things. The sites fail on both counts here, and either one would have been a stopper.
 * 7) Sites with other meaningful, relevant content that is not suitable for inclusion in an article, such as reviews and interviews.
 * 8) *Nothing like reviews or interviews here. Just partisan POV.

Now let's look at WP:EL's "Links normally to be avoided". This one is longer, so I'll just copy the ones that apply here:
 * 1) Links mainly intended to promote a website.
 * 2) *It would appear that one anonymous user showing up and providing three links to Pure Community Ministries is doing exactly that. You're probably not involved in promoting the website, but your restoration of the links nevertheless has that effect.
 * 3) Links to sites that primarily exist to sell products or services. For example, instead of linking to a commercial bookstore site, use the "ISBN" linking format, giving readers an opportunity to search a wide variety of free and non-free book sources.
 * 4) *All the sites added are only two clicks away from Pure Community Ministries' online book store.
 * 5) Links to sites that require payment or registration to view the relevant content.
 * 6) *These sites do require registration and email address harvesting for participation.
 * 7) Links to social networking sites (such as MySpace), discussion forums or USENET.
 * 8) *These sites are discussion forums. That's pretty specific.

So I'm taking the links down. There may be problems with the other external links, but these definitely have to go. — coe l acan — 19:39, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Added Some Science Links, Commentia on NPOV
I mostly just go around finding cites, but some of you who want a more neutral tone may wish to rewrite sections of the cite and link to the WebMD article I've added, which offers opinions on both sides of this.

I found the page by hitting 'random' until I found a page that needed citation fixing (that's what I do late at night). I probably won't be back anytime soon. That said, I'll note from personal experience, I am very pro-porn, I've been a phone sex girl, and I've seen an ex go through a paraphilia issue that could only be described as pornography addiction. While many of the people fighting against it are, to be honest, complete loons with serious agendas, don't assume that if the article is mostly 'well, porn addiction is bad' cites that that means that the POV isn't N. People who study it in scientific, peer reviewed places need to actually come up with real examples of it and the impact. If they look around a lot, and the result is 'Hey. It's not affecting people's lives at all.' then there's nothing for them to study. - Thespian 06:29, 22 March 2007 (UTC)


 * The brainphysics site briefly mentions "pornography dependence" in a list of "non-paraphilic sexual addictions". However, while the DSM-III-R did use the term "non-paraphilic sexual addictions", that was dropped from the DSM-IV. It is no longer recognized. So this information is out of date. On the other site, psychiatrictimes.com, the article linked attempts to present a theory of sexual addiction. However, it only mentions pornography use briefly in a single case study, and the author, Aviel Goodman, does not present any mention of "pornography addiction", which is what this page is about. That citation may be useful on another article, but it's actually not relevant here. The WebMD cite appears useful though. I'll keep that in. The other two I'll remove, as one is outdated and the other not related. — coe l acan — 21:50, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Do Not Link to Anti-Porn Crusaders & 'We Can Help You!' Sites
There are THOUSANDS of sites and therapists out there that profess to help people who are suffering from porn addiction. The purpose of this article is NOT to provide links to a pile of people with a vested interest in this subject (financial or moral), but instead to provide an encyclopedic view of the subject. Unless there is a noteworthy reason to include a particular anti-pornography site, such as third party news coverage of them that has a reason to be in the article, links will be removed from the article. There are lots of things that are relevant to the subject, but they have nothing to do with providing a usable encyclopedia article about the subject.

I do, in point, follow every single link that is added to this page, and I will not remove anything that has a valid reason to be here (in point, I am inclusionist, and I think I've rv'ed and undone more edits to this page than I've done in all my other edits on Wikipedia). But please do not keep adding links to every anti-porn group and site on the web, or it will make this article unusable. - Thespian 04:34, 9 April 2007 (UTC)


 * So who died and made you Wiki king? (See WP:OWN.) Jinxmchue 04:40, 9 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Re: making me the Wiki-king - oddly, no one. But referring me to WP:OWN, after you reposted the links with an order that no one should remove them in your comments, seems mighty ironic. If, say, I'd objected when Coelacan had removed several of my cites last month, then perhaps I'd be seen as having problems with it. He was right, my cites were weak (they were what I coulf find, I'll note, but he's more involved in this page). You seem to have far more problems with not wanting other people to edit you than I do. If you look at the history of this page, I've spent the last week removing links that were added by therapists to their own anti-porn addiction websites; do you really want this page to just be let go so that anyone who has a site on this subject can link to it, regardless of relevancy? There are thousands of such pages on both sides of this. I do think you need to scope out WP:NOT and WP:NOT before adding links to a page that aren't references or part of the bibliography. External links are welcome, but just linking to everything on the subject and calling it 'relevant' will not serve Wikipedia or this article. -Thespian 17:55, 9 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Hardly. I'm fighting against WP "owners" by arguing for the inclusion of relevant WP pages and links. There may well be "thousands" of pages about porn addiction, but that's no argument for removing links. If it were, we'd have to remove a lot more links on other pages. The fact of the matter is Xxxchurch is well-known, receives a lot of traffic and has been covered extensively in the news; in other words, it's notable. Finally, I can find no Wiki rule that states that all internal and external links must be neutral (read: "Godless"). That's just a rule you made up in trying to WP:OWN this article. Jinxmchue 17:18, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Pretty easy to evaluate this one. Again, the third criterion from WP:EL's "What should be linked" is the one you're shooting for:
 * 3. Sites that contain neutral and accurate material that cannot be integrated into the Wikipedia article due to copyright issues, amount of detail (such as professional athlete statistics, movie or television credits, interview transcripts, or online textbooks) or other reasons.
 * Is this site neutral? No. It is a Christian ministry for the purpose of converting people to believe in Jesus. Does it have accurate material? Let's look at http://xxxchurch.com/07/gethelp/men.php ... "Fact #1 Women are beautiful because that's the way God made them." And what is the suggested means of self-help? Answer: "confess your sins".

We've already danced these steps. — coe l acan — 05:06, 9 April 2007 (UTC)


 * As I stated below, "What should be linked" does not presume the opposite (which is why there is a separate "Links normally to be avoided" section - and note that word: "normally"). There is no "What should not be linked" guideline that states, "Sites that a Wiki editor has judged to be biased." Jinxmchue 17:47, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Analysis of the Xxxchurch link as it relates to WP:EL's "Links normally to be avoided:"

1. Any site that does not provide a unique resource beyond what the article would contain if it became a Featured article. - N/A: provides a unique resource

2. Any site that misleads the reader by use of factually inaccurate material or unverifiable research. See Wikipedia:Attribution#Reliable sources. - N/A: does not mislead

3. Links mainly intended to promote a website. - N/A: not a promotional link

4. Links to sites that primarily exist to sell products or services. For example, instead of linking to a commercial bookstore site, use the "ISBN" linking format, giving readers an opportunity to search a wide variety of free and non-free book sources. - N/A: does not exist solely to sell anything

5. Links to sites with objectionable amounts of advertising. - N/A: not much advertising

6. Links to sites that require payment or registration to view the relevant content. - N/A: no payment or registration needed

7. Sites that are inaccessible to a substantial number of users, such as sites that only work with a specific browser. - N/A: anyone can view it

8. Direct links to documents that require external applications (such as Flash or Java) to view the relevant content, unless the article is about such rich media. If you do link to such material make a note of what application is required. - N/A: no special apps needed

9. Links to search engine and aggregated results pages. - N/A: not a search engine

10. Links to social networking sites (such as MySpace), discussion forums or USENET. - N/A: not an SNS, forum or USENET

11. Links to blogs and personal web pages, except those written by a recognized authority. - N/A: not a blog or personal web page

12. Links to open wikis, except those with a substantial history of stability and a substantial number of editors. - N/A: not an open wiki

13. Sites that are only indirectly related to the article's subject: the link should be directly related to the subject of the article. A general site that has information about a variety of subjects should usually not be linked to from an article on a more specific subject. Similarly, a website on a specific subject should usually not be linked to an article about a general subject. If a section of a general website is devoted to the subject of the article, and meets the other criteria for linking, then that part of the site could be deep-linked. - N/A: directly related to the article

You'll note that at no point does that say anything about links that one WP editor or another has judged to be not neutral. As for the section about "What should be linked to," it does not mean those are the only things that can be linked to. Jinxmchue 17:38, 10 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes, let's look at WP:EL's "links to be avoided". Three are pertinent:
 * 1. Any site that does not provide a unique resource beyond what the article would contain if it became a Featured article.
 * I have a hard time seeing what exactly you think the unique resource is here. I see a video of a woman in a rabbit suit (not a unique sight) and the opportunity to confess my sins to Jesus (not a unique opportunity).
 * 2. Any site that misleads the reader by use of factually inaccurate material or unverifiable research. See Attribution.
 * I see at least one possible instance of this and one definite case. The only ostensibly informational content to be found on this site are these "Pornography Industry Statistics", but these are completely uncited and we have no indication of where they came from. We would certainly not use that link to directly cite any supposed factual claim in an article, so they're not "reliable sources" by Wikipedia's standards. They may be true, but they may be inaccurate and misleading, and without any source, they're unverifiable. There is another part of the site that is definitely misleading. The parents' section plays a segment of video from Perversion for Profit, with no disclaimer or even a hint of irony. The segment ends with that stellar quote: "This moral decay weakens our resistance to the onslaught of the Communist masters of deceit." We can only presume that XXXchurch are seriously trying to link pornography to Communism.
 * 4. Links to sites that primarily exist to sell products or services. For example, instead of linking to a commercial bookstore site, use the "ISBN" linking format, giving readers an opportunity to search a wide variety of free and non-free book sources.
 * This is the nail in the coffin. XXXchurch's primary content is commercial. After the media-rich intro screen, retail sales are literally the very next thing the reader is presented with. Go to their website, click on the first link at the top left, "Get Help". This brings up a submenu; click on the first link, "Facts". This takes you to this page, where the first thing they tell you is to sign up with Pure Online, and the second thing they tell you is to sign up with The X3 Help at Home Program. X3 Help at Home only costs $1000 for singles or $2000 for couples. It's hard to say this isn't about money. Pure Online is a series of video lectures, costing from $180 to $495. The people giving the lectures include Craig Gross, Jason Harper, and Jake Larson, each of whom is affiliated with either XXXchurch or Fireproof Ministries (the parent group of XXXchurch). I hear the sound of kickbacks.
 * You're correct that the list of things that should be linked to is not an exhaustive list. However, that means you've got to make a case for linking to something else. Remember, "Links should be kept to a minimum." What does your link offer besides an empty wallet and a religious revival experience? — coe l acan — 01:06, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

definition
under the heading "general information" I am changing it from "pornography addiction is defined as" to "could be defined as" due to the fact that was explained at the beginning of the article. That pornography addiction is not a recognised psychological disorder. I have little doubt personally that it exists, how common I don't know, but you can't say it is defined as anything unless an accepted medical journal defines it. Colin 8 06:16, 19 April 2007 (UTC) I figure it doesn't need the citation tag anymore since its all theoretical now.Colin 8 06:20, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree with your reasoning, but I think it's still preferable to seek a citation for someone who's attempting to define it as such. But, I could be off-track there. If someone wants to remove again that cite template I've restored, I won't press the issue. It is fairly nebulous. — coe l acan — 15:00, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Not sure about the proper phrasing, but I'm addicted to online porn and it really sucks. It's just as strong as addiction to tobbaco to me. You might not believe me but I'm sure of this. Perhaps it's "compulsion" because chemistry is not involved. Whatever, I'm addicted. --OnlinePornAddict 01:49, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Removal of the most of the Pornagraphy Addiction skeptics
I removed the second paragraph because it was actually a paragraph depicting an argument against skeptics.

word for word reverts??
This revert cannot be justified through any wikipedia guideline. In fact these are good faith edits which improved the article, that any editor can cross check. Coming to the revert summary, "two peoples opinions dont represent psychological consensus" — if carefully read, the section begins with "Psychologists and Sex therapists like Dr.Kimberly Young, Dr.Victor Cline, both ...", which has an impartial tone. So there is no question of removing word for word, -- Bluptr (talk) 14:20, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Viability of diagnosis
This is hardly a recognized diagnosis in any psychological establishment I know of. It might be popular some places in USA, but as far as I can tell from this article, it's not even in DSM IV! I would suspect it's popularity in USA has more to do with religion and moral norms than psychology, but whatever support it has, the fact remains that it is not an official diagnosis.

Yet, when I glance at and read this article, "Pornography addiction" comes off as a very established and understood phenomenon in psychology, and a problem on it's own. Personally, I think this is rediculous (if we should have "pornography addiction", then why not "candy addiction", "tv addiction", "listening to music addiction" and "sitting inside addiction"?), as the reader might already be able to discern. But even if you take this diagnosis seriously, you have to admit it is NOT an established diagnosis. Not in DSM IV, and definately not world wide. In fact, I have never seen it mentioned by anyone other than people from USA, and even in USA it's controversial.

The article should reflect this. This is not an arena to rewrite the textbooks of psychology, and articles should be NPOV. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.215.119.169 (talk) 23:11, 10 October 2008 (UTC)


 * it might not be in DSM IV, but the experts have defined it in terms of DSM IV, WHO's terms! There are several journals on this study, to say that "It might be popular some places in USA", is original research, just refer to the book, Web Stalkers and there are several books which say its an worldwide problem. -- Bluptr (talk) 03:32, 11 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Hope this edit answers your doubt related to worldwide view., you can also refer to the journal. Bluptr (talk) 03:56, 11 October 2008 (UTC)


 * One person defining it in terms of the DSM is not the same thing as saying there is a consensus that this is an actual disorder. Mdwh (talk) 03:31, 4 January 2009 (UTC)


 * It is not presently in the DSM. (The DSM is available to those strongly desiring to go look.)  There is a court case where a fired ex-employee is suing, insisting that under the US Americans with disabilities act he should not be fired for surfing porn sites instead of working, as he is an addict, and should be allowed reasonable accommodation.sinneed (talk) 23:55, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Why the Ted Bundy anecdote?
I am not sure the anecdote involving Ted Bundy under the "stages in pornography addiction" is necessary or helpful. My impression is that it is meant to be an anecdote substantiating the existence of stages in pornography addiction - and I think that it achieves this to a degree - but it also acts to associate pornography addicts with serial killers of the worst kind. People shouldn't get the idea that escalating stages of pornography leads to serial killing. Another problem is that it substantiates the idea of stages in pornography in a way that is only anecdotal, which doesn't go very far in proving the phenomenon, especial granted the exceptional nature of the individual in question. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.53.184.27 (talk) 03:59, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

The author of the book DOES argue that stages in pornography use, much less addiction, does in fact lead to serial killers. Furthermore, he argues this is due to the left wing. I added a book review to provide a bit of balance. I share your concern as to whether or not any of it belongs where it is.sinneed (talk) 23:52, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

I went ahead and deleted the passage. Ben Shapiro is a fear monger and blatant liar, and from the Wiki page on Ted Bundy, "Researchers generally agree that Bundy's sudden condemnation of pornography was one last manipulative attempt to forestall his execution by catering to Dobson's agenda as a longtime anti-pornography advocate, telling him precisely what he wanted to hear.[310]" 107.10.253.217 (talk) 23:30, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

Cut a line to talk page for discussion.
In recent ages the advent of shock sites often combine pornography and shock humor, making it possible for online pornography addicts to pass off their addiction as simple humor.

1st... I would like to see a source for this. 2nd... even if we find one, it seems nonsensical. Serious overusers of porn, which I rather confidently say would include anyone conceivably called an addict, would "need" for more than these.

I won't kill it again, but... I don't think it belongs, as is. sinneed (talk) 23:50, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Schneider - content and ref cut to here
Formal criteria have been suggested by psychologists like Richard Irons, M. D. and Jennifer P. Schneider along lines strictly analogous to the [[Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders|DSM]] criteria for alcohol and other substance addictions.

While this is an interesting paper, it does NOT propose a diagnosis of "Pornography Addiction". It is about sexual addiction, of which one facet is use of pornography. It may be useful on the sexual addiction article... I don't see its value here, even as an EL, and certainly not as a source for the statement it is attached to.sinneed (talk) 00:18, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Various problems with article...
Not happy with the general tone of this article... it all sounds very "wishy-washy" and argumentative...

Diagnosis as an addiction > Dispute

''Stephen Andert states that pornography is a problem for many people, and argues that it can take control of a person's life like alcohol, gambling or drugs, and "drag them kicking and screaming or voluntarily into the gutter." He argues further that the "addictive and progressive (or regressive) nature of pornography is well documented."[3]''

This reads like some random person's opinion. If this supposed "nature of pornography" is so well documented, don't say "some guy says it's well documented" - explain what the documentation is and what it says.

Proposed stages of pornography addiction

WTF? Ted Bundy...? I don't see the point of this paragraph at all. It doesn't even mention if he was (supposedly) addicted to porn. Relevance? It just reads like a poorly disguised suggestion that porn can lead to serial killing (of course if that were true, we'd all be dead) or at least violence. —Preceding unsigned comment added by PollyWaffler (talk • contribs) 13:29, 15 May 2009 (UTC)


 * So wp:be bold - it certainly needs much work to be a good article. I've already applied the editorial hatchet... it needs much more work.
 * "argumentative" - since it is an article about the dispute over whether or not there is any such thing, that makes sense.
 * "disgused" - I don't think it is disguised.

- sinneed (talk) 15:19, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Large copyvio cut
An interested editor may wish to write out the 1990 proposed definition of addiction from an "British Journal of Addiction" article by Aviel Goodman, M.D. Similarly the proposed stages of porn addiction from "Confronting Your Spouse's Pornography Problem" By Rory C. Reid, Dan Gray.

These works were included before without meeting wp:quote. Cut.- sinneed (talk) 18:25, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

christianet.com as a wp:RS
I moved it to the EL section and dubious flagged it. It is clearly related to the subject... but I am not confident it has useful things to say here. I won't kill it, and won't move it again if readded as a footnote. But I object to the latter. :) - sinneed (talk) 21:57, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Proposed Link to Croga.org
I added the below link and it was deleted by sinneed shortly afterward as because he doubted the usefulness to the article. Croga.org has resources to help people who are concerned about downloading Child pornography. It's non-comercial and not politically or religously biased. I'm not affiliated with site or any anti-pornography movement and I can't think of any page where this link would be relevant. Also, this article seems biased toward the view that this is not a disorder and has nothing concerning its treatment. Link= CROGA.org provider of free, multi-lingual, anonymous self-help resources for people who are worried about downloading and using illegal images Stillwaterising (talk) 01:08, 16 October 2009 (UTC)


 * I see how this site can help people. I see how having it listed in WP will generate traffic for the site.  But wp:NOT a list of links, not the yellow pages.  I there is useful content related to the issue of whether or not there is such a thing as pornography addiction, perhaps an interested editor will add content to the article, and cite it as a source.
 * Possible wp:RS. No hits on google news, no hits on google scholar, book: "Sexual Deviance: Theory, Assessment, and Treatment" By D. Richard Laws, William T. O'Donohue.  There were 2 other book hits but I don't have easy access to them to see if there seems to be notability for the site as providing valid information.-  Sinneed  02:35, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

"Also, this article seems biased toward the view that this is not a disorder and has nothing concerning its treatment."
 * wp:SOFIXIT Adding spurious sites to the article won't accomplish that.- Sinneed  02:09, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

I will argue that if we need this as an EL: Is more appropriate... but I oppose, just to be clear.
 * "Croga.org provides free, anonymous self-help resources for people who are worried about downloading and using" "child pornography"


 * Merriam-Webster defines spurious as "outwardly similar or corresponding to something without having genuine qualities". I don't see how this applies. wp:NOTYELLOW says "contact information such as phone numbers, fax numbers and email addresses are not encyclopedic".  I don't see how this applies either. I do think the relevant information on treatment, like the uses of Cognitive behavioral therapy, Content-control software, Psychotherapy should be added to the page. However, until this information is available, an external link can help fill in missing relevant information. In wp:external link item #3 of what should be linked is "Sites that contain neutral and accurate material that cannot be integrated into the Wikipedia article..." I understand the idea of wp:SOFIXIT and plan on doing more research on both treatment and Psychopharmacology and contributing more later.  I also agree to change the EL as proposed above.  Stillwaterising (talk) 06:13, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

LDS site being used as an RS on pornography addiction
I am very very dubious of the http://mentalhealthlibrary.info/ site being used as an RS on porn or porn addiction. This is an LDS partisan site. Perhaps as ELs. I do see the work that has been done in updating from the previous (dead) version, and note that this site, too, is moving. Unless someone argues that these should be wp:RS, I am going to turn them into External Links.- Sinneed  15:05, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Dead link, promo link, new promo link
I removed a dead link, and 2 others. All 3 have been restored. wp:EL - I see no need for the 2 live links, and the dead link certainly needs to go. I'll remove these later today unless there is some reason they belong.- Sinneed  20:14, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
 * As a gesture toward compromise (I don't think either belong), I think it might be good to leave the pro and anti sites in. I am killing the dead link, in keeping with wp:EL.  If an interested editor has a live link, perhaps it should be included, no idea. -  Sinneed  20:24, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Dead link I killed: - Sinneed  20:27, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Dead link to http://www.freespeechcoalition.com/dan_linz.htm

made edit in proposed stages of pornography addiction
sounded one sided, didnt mention that most biographers of ted bundy think he only condemned porn in hopes that his execution would be delayed. i left the other info there, i just added more. heres a source from the ted bundy article thats goes along with it, i dont know how to do footnotes ^ Michaud & Aynesworth 1989, p. 320. the flow of it needs work i think. Hoginford (talk) 00:22, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Zero NPOV in this article
The neutrality of this article is non existent, and it reads more like a damning  christian  religious self help flyer.  Rob van  vee  10:48, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Basically, you don't like it. Please be more specific about what needs to change or remove the tags. --65.28.71.204 (talk) 21:22, 11 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Don’t like what? While I might or might not agree with the content, my feelings towards the article are completely neutral as they are towards this or this. How the article is compiled is another story altogether. The reason an article gets tagged can be found here. Being tagged is not a bad thing, it just means there are a few issues that need looking at and at the time of tagging, the editor didn’t have time for it and was either hoping someone else would, or if not, at some point they would return to it. This article starts off to say that there is no diagnosis for pornography addiction according to the DSM and then goes on to explain the causes and treatment, neither of which are from the angle that this is a proposed condition. It says: “In 1990 Aviel Goodman proposed a general definition of all types of addictions in order to extend the specific disorders included in the DSM-III-R. While not explicitly in the context of pornography…” Not explicitly? Not at all! Read the cited note. It goes on to say “Pornography addiction is defined, as a dependence upon pornography characterized by obsessive viewing, reading, and thinking about pornography and sexual themes to the detriment of other areas of life”. Defined by whom? Another line: “For example, a lonely and abused 13-year-old finds comfort in masturbation and pornography. More and more, he or she uses that for solace. As years go by, the type of sexual acting out may change. It can involve promiscuity, affairs, and visiting massage parlors or prostitutes”. Without citations this sounds very much like WP:OR. The credibility of the article is further questioned by the section quoting a Fox News Channel author and “expert” at note 35.  Written By Yvonne K. Fulbright…written by who? An expert in what?  We may not agree to the content and its various angles, but let’s agree to a few things: NPOV, no OR and enough citations.  Rob  van  vee  23:01, 11 May 2013 (UTC)
 * I'll go through the contested material tomorrow and thereafter remove the tags. Rob van  vee  23:04, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

False claims by Chrislyte
Your claim that "The DSM-5 has never explicitly considered online pornography consumption for inclusion as an addiction, and has not, to date, accepted it." is patently false. Read pages 797-798 of DSM-5. Tgeorgescu (talk) 00:11, 30 July 2014 (UTC)


 * I mean the part with "never explicitly considered...". Tgeorgescu (talk) 00:14, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

"Differential Diagnosis Excessive use of the Internet not involving playing of online games (e.g., excessive use of social media, such as Facebook; viewing pornography online) is not considered analogous to Internet gaming disorder, and future research on other excessive uses of the Internet would need to follow similar guidelines as suggested herein. Excessive gambling online may qualify for a separate diagnosis of gambling disorder."

- DSM-5, pp. 797-798


 * Quoted by Tgeorgescu (talk) 00:24, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

Thank you Tgeorgescu for making my point. The DSM5 has not formally debated Internet pornography addiction. Therefore it has not specifically rejected it. Please provide evidence of formal comment procedure and vote. Chrislyte (talk) 23:37, 30 July 2014 (UTC)Chrislyte


 * Well, above I have shown that DSM-5 explicitly mentions viewing pornography online and explicitly disqualifies it as mental disorder, since the DSM-5 team could find no peer-reviewed evidence for it (as the quote offered inside the article says and "would need to follow similar guidelines" implies). Tgeorgescu (talk) 00:50, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, but formal consideration of a condition by the DSM is an extensive *formal* procedure, which allows for public commentary, etc. Casual notes of the type you cite are not the same as formal consideration (and rejection) of a specific disorder. In short, "internet porn addiction" was not "specifically" rejected. Chrislyte (talk) 18:46, 31 July 2014 (UTC)Chrislyte


 * I have no sources upon such formal consideration, but the text is very clear: it mentions verbatim viewing pornography online and goes on saying that its parent category cannot be considered a mental disorder. It's like saying that no horse is a primate, all monkeys are primates, therefore no horse is a monkey. Tgeorgescu (talk) 19:00, 31 July 2014 (UTC)


 * The argument can be rephrased as: no primate is a horse, all monkeys are primates, therefore no monkey is a horse. Tgeorgescu (talk) 18:34, 6 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Let me restate it: I don't know your sources stating that it didn't get formal consideration and I cannot make positive affirmations relying upon something which I don't know. Instead, I made in the article positive affirmations about what the text says verbatim, without any kind of "interpretation" (other than the purely literal one), namely that internet addiction, which according to the DSM includes viewing pornography online, isn't considered a mental disorder because the guidelines have not been followed (there is not enough peer-reviewed evidence to affirm such an idea). It is your task, not mine, to produce such sources for verifying your claims, which anyway cannot be used to deny what the DSM text explicitly says, since what it says, it says, that is an objective fact. Tgeorgescu (talk) 21:06, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

Wait, do we have a secondary source that says that it's never been considered? If not, the sentence needs to be struck as original research. We really don't need to bother evaluating the truth of the statement independent of the sources. The source that's there now is inadequate. 0x0077BE [talk/contrib] 12:15, 7 August 2014 (UTC)


 * That's what I am saying: Chrislyte never told us where he got the information from, as far as we could guess it could be through mind reading or he just made it up. At User talk:Chrislyte he admitted he cannot offer any source for it, claiming "Has it occurred to you that there is no way to prove that something *did not* occur...because it did not occur." As far as Wikipedia is concerned, there are reliable sources which support the claim Woodrow Wilson was not assassinated, even though his assassination did not occur. Tgeorgescu (talk) 12:31, 7 August 2014 (UTC)


 * The info you removed was properly sourced many years ago, but we notice that a 2005 article cannot describe what's in DSM-5 and what the team who published it in 2013 did or didn't reject. Tgeorgescu (talk) 20:01, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

"When the fifth edition of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-5) was being drafted, experts considered a proposed diagnostic addiction called hypersexual disorder, which also included a pornography subtype. But in the end, reviewers determined that there wasn't enough evidence to include hypersexual disorder or its subtypes in the 2013 edition."

- Kirsten Weir


 * Quoted from http://www.apa.org/monitor/2014/04/pornography.aspx Tgeorgescu (talk) 18:09, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

New research invalidates Ley et al claims about porn use causing ED
I removed the following sentence:


 * Some have suggested that use can lead to erectile dysfunction, but this has never been demonstrated by any research.

Recent Peer-reviewed research by Cambridge University team headed by Addiction neuroscientist Valeri Voon found erectile dysfunction in compulsive porn users that was caused by porn use. Quotes from the research:

CSB subjects reported that as a result of excessive use of sexually explicit materials, they had lost jobs due to use at work (N = 2), damaged intimate relationships or negatively influenced other social activities (N = 16), experienced diminished libido or erectile function specifically in physical relationships with women (although not in relationship to the sexually explicit material) (N = 11),

CSB subjects compared to healthy volunteers had significantly more difficulty with sexual arousal and experienced more erectile difficulties in intimate sexual relationships but not to sexually explicit material.

Please note the wording in the first quote: "as a result of excessive use of sexually explicit materials". Not only do 60% of compulsive porn users have ED, they sate the ED is the result of porn use. Chrislyte (talk) 00:02, 31 July 2014 (UTC)Chrislyte

Ley et al misrepresent data
I removed this as it was based on Ley et al. Original citations provided by Ley et all do not support this claim.


 * The only estimates based on a nationally-representative sample place problems with this behavior around .5% of the population

Ley et al use this paragraph to justify 0.5% -


 * Empirical estimates from nationally representative samples are that 0.8 % of men and 0.6 % of women report out of control sexual behaviors that interfere with their daily lives [23]. If one assumes these individuals might seek treatment, 82 % of treatment seekers report problems with VSS, and clinicians agree that they have a clinical problem in about 88 % of cases [10]. Thus, VSS problems might affect 0.58 % of men and 0.43 % of women in the USA.

This above paragraph demonstrates Ley et al.'s lack of integrity. First, their estimates rest on citation 23, a study that is not about porn use. The stdudy specifically stated that, "We had not asked about pornography." Instead, it was about sexual experiences, fantasies and urges. In other words, this study has no place in a "porn addiction" review, and all of the artful statistical chicanery that follows is meaningless.

That said, it's worth noting that Ley, Prause and Finn cherry-picked from the irrelevant study's results. Nearly 13% of men and 7% of women reported out of control sexual experiences, but Ley et al. ignored those percentages and only mentioned that 0.8% of men and 0.6% of women reported that their "actual sexual behavior had interfered with their lives." Porn use is not sex. Problematic porn use therefore exists in some people who believe that no "actual sexual behavior [is] interfering with their lives."

Ley et al. next make the groundless leap that problematic porn use is always a subset of "actual sexual behavior that interferes with users' lives," and estimate that porn problems might affect 0.58 % of men and 0.43 % of women in the USA. Ley et al.'s own source (citation 24) says that experts estimated (in 2012) that 8–17% of Internet pornography users were addicted.

In contrast with the Ley et al.'s trivial estimates, the researchers in "Viewing Internet Pornography: For Whom is it Problematic, How, and Why?" found that,

''approximately 20%–60% of the sample who view pornography find it to be problematic depending on the domain of interest. In this study, the amount of viewing did not predict the level of problems experienced.''

Ley et al.'s purposefully misleading calculations also assume that everyone with porn addiction seeks treatment. In fact, it's likely that only a small percentage do. This is just one of many examples of misrepresentations by Ley et al.

Please do not cite the Ley review as a source. Instead cite post-internet era studies specifically on porn use or porn addiction. Chrislyte (talk) 00:27, 31 July 2014 (UTC)Chrislyte

Questionable sources (MEDRS template)
I don't say that the marked sources would be low-quality, but per WP:MEDRS we should refrain from using primary sources for verifying medical claims. Tgeorgescu (talk) 18:10, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

I'm confused. The existing article cites an off-the-wall primary source by Nicole Prause ("http://www.socioaffectiveneuroscipsychol.net/index.php/snp/article/view/20770/28995" -- a study which has no actual findings, and has been critiqued in the peer-reviewed literature: http://www.socioaffectiveneuroscipsychol.net/index.php/snp/article/view/23833/32589), and yet I cannot cite a primary resource from Cambridge University conducted by the top neuroscience addiction researchers in the world, backed up by a thorough recent review that it aligns with? This is unbelievable. I think it's time to appeal this to to other critics, don't you?

I am happy to explain my edits, and just took a break first. The videos were removed because the first is based on the Prause study I just mentioned, which reached conclusions entirely unsupported by the actual "findings," and has been critiqued for this reason. The video about it gives the public a false impression of the state of the research on porn addiction. The second video shows anything but a consensus, so it is no support whatsoever for the page as it currently stands. Therefore it, too, adds confusion. It's at least more accurate than the first.

The only brain study [medical research] on porn addicts [compulsive porn users] needs to appear on this page about porn addiction. I'm sure any medical doctor will agree.

I will restore my edits as they are justified and quite reasonable.

Chrislyte (talk) 18:41, 31 July 2014 (UTC)Chrislyte


 * Prause et al. is a review, thus a secondary source. Tgeorgescu (talk) 18:44, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

I know this is all a game for you, but as I'm sure someone will be reviewing this, I need to clarify. The article cites TWO Prause items, one a study (primary) and one a review. I am referring to the former.

In any case, you have not addressed my substantive concerns. What of the primary and secondary sources about internet porn addiction that you keep removing without justification?Chrislyte (talk) 18:49, 31 July 2014 (UTC)Chrislyte


 * Feel free to restore http://www.asam.org/pdf/Advocacy/20110816_DefofAddiction-FAQs.pdf if you wish. Tgeorgescu (talk) 18:58, 31 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Ok, I agree, the Prause article which is primary source can be tagged with medrs. Tgeorgescu (talk) 19:06, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

That is certainly appropriate for the primary Prause source, but not for the Cambridge study. I've asked for a third opinion and will do so for this section too.Chrislyte (talk) 19:28, 31 July 2014 (UTC)Chrislyte


 * You cannot eat your cake and still have it. Tgeorgescu (talk) 19:40, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

The asam.org reference has nothing to do with this discussion.Chrislyte (talk) 20:38, 31 July 2014 (UTC)Chrislyte


 * You accused me of removing it without justification. Tgeorgescu (talk) 20:52, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

I have clarified that the DSM has never considered "internet pornography addiction" using its required procedures, and left the comment about the fact that it was mentioned along with the observation that there was, as yet, insufficient evidence to include it.

This should resolve our differences.Chrislyte (talk) 17:50, 1 August 2014 (UTC)Chrislyte

This should resolve our differences...on this DSM point.Chrislyte (talk) 17:52, 1 August 2014 (UTC)Chrislyte


 * Provide reliable sources which explicitly state this. Tgeorgescu (talk) 21:14, 1 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Hmm, Keithbob, that Prause source is reviewing the literature; perhaps, it's in line with this part of WP:MEDRS? Zad68, do you have anything to offer regarding this source? Flyer22 (talk) 16:40, 5 August 2014 (UTC)


 * There are two Prause sources, one is a review, the other is a primary source. Tgeorgescu (talk) 16:44, 5 August 2014 (UTC)


 * I'm referring to the one that Keithbob cited. Flyer22 (talk) 16:49, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes good point, its a literature review but not a research review. What is the (primary?) source that is the original source of contention here?-- — Keithbob • Talk  • 16:59, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

The journal the first Prause article is in is not even MEDLINE indexed and so raises questions about its quality. Are other journals in this area MEDLINE indexed? What is the impact factor? Are the findings of this source in line with higher quality sources? 03:25, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

Blimpish Prudery of this article - summary
My edits to this article have been rejected and so I return to the initial common sense realities of life outside of Wikipedia.

The title of this article is a misnomer - It is only an opinion, POV, that adult erotica is "Pornography", that it is "obscene and disgusting". Use the words "depravity" and "corruption" as well. Except that it is not "pornographic", "depraved" and "corrupt" when people engage in penetrative and oral sex in real life. That is considered normal. Here lies the ironic fact that all negative references to so-called "pornography" represent the worst sort of hypocrisy.

Let's say that someone accesses Erotica 18 hours per day, and at the same time listens to their favourite music at the same time. Will that person be accused of engaging in "Music Addiction" --- no, that person will only de indicted of "pornography addiction". Incidentally, listening to music all day long every day is considered normal.

Adult Erotica is on the move all the time, new performers, new directors and new films are being introduced all the time. Adult Erotica is a living thing, on the move all the time where no two days are the same. Just like television programmes are on the move all the time, with new soap operas, new dramas, new game shows, new everything for people to watch. Nobody calls watching television an addiction because people want to know what's new in television. The very same thing applies the cinema and music. People do EXACTLY THE SAME THING with Adult Erotica. It's just another medium, and just as big a source of tax for the governments.

The fabric of this article is Blimpish Prudery because it subscribes to the opinion that the subject matter is "pornographic", "obscene" and "disgusting" because the visual art of showing sex is wrong and the people who access it are in the wrong over some moral reasons.

In the meantime, life goes on in contradiction to what this article is all about. This Wikipedia article remains unable to justify its central argument. Nobody in the entire history of the Human Race has ever been "damaged" by accessing Adult Erotica, whether for 4 hours per day or for 14 hours per day. Adult Erotica has always been part of Human History. From Stone Age Paintings to Greek and Roman art to sepia photography to digital modern times. Likewise, the objection to this material has always been in evidence, this Wikipedia article acting as a testimony to that fact. Dickie birdie (talk) 10:07, 28 October 2016 (UTC)
 * The amount of time that you spend doing something is not a gauge that determines whether or not you have an addiction. You clearly don't understand what a behavioral addiction is based upon your comment.  Seppi  333  (Insert 2¢) 12:24, 28 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Our article does not say that pornography addiction definitely exists, it says that some claim that it exists, while others deny it. Inside Wikipedia, you have to have WP:SOURCES in order to make valid edits. About the kind of sources needed for medical claims see WP:MEDRS. Science does not rely upon anecdotal evidence and neither does Wikipedia. If you ask me, it's the same as with food: most people eat food without problems, but some simply cannot control themselves. Same goes for pornography. Whether this means addiction or not, it is not Wikipedia editors who make the call, instead we wait for the medical orthodoxy to make the call and we simply render the mainstream medical view. Tgeorgescu (talk) 18:53, 28 October 2016 (UTC)


 * I have had to blank the webpage because the article is disgusting. It has been written by people who are offended by XXX material. And it is loaded big time Dickie birdie (talk) 16:47, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

If you think the article is biased, point us to reliable sources that can make it more balanced. Do not blank the page, nor accuse other editors of prudery.

And in this case the article is less concerned with pornographic works and their contents, and more concerned with the effects on the addicts' lives: "difficulty in general life functioning". Dimadick (talk) 23:30, 30 November 2016 (UTC)


 * He/she got indeffed. Anyway, it isn't the mainstream view that there is such a thing as pornography addiction, it isn't the mainstream view that there is no such thing as pornography addiction, so we can only cover the controversy. Tgeorgescu (talk) 00:50, 1 December 2016 (UTC)


 * There is no such thing in existence as a medical condition called "pornography addiction". It is a made-up thing invented by those who are offended by Adult Erotica. No such thing exists in medicine, The Wikipedia article is propaganda, An experienced Wikipedia editor has been indefinately banned for absolutely nothing except for writing on an Editor's Talk Page and the Editor having the ability to ban him. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.132.66.44 (talk) 11:53, 1 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Editing Wikipedia supposes one is able to cooperate with others and give them the benefit of doubt. No one is entitled to delete Wikipedia articles simply because he/she does not like them. The matter discussed in this article is far from settled and this is what the article says. Tgeorgescu (talk) 17:10, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

Erotica damaging people
There is no evidence in existence to justify this claim. Nothing. It's something that belongs primarily to English-language culture. Visit other countries. Broaden your horizons. Dickie birdie (talk) 14:33, 26 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Blimpish Prudery. The whole concept of Pornography Addiction originates from and belongs to Blimpish Prudery. I have been accessing erotica all my life since the 1960s and it has never "damaged" me or anyone else I know. You are unable to cite even one example or one person's name to back up your position. Dickie birdie (talk) 18:52, 26 October 2016 (UTC)


 * This discussion belongs on the article talk page, not my talk page. In any event, I'm not adding any claims to the article, so I don't need to cite any sources; my "position" also hasn't been written into the article.  Seppi  333  (Insert 2¢) 18:57, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

It damaged me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.4.232.49 (talk) 00:47, 26 March 2018 (UTC)


 * Testimonial evidence, see WP:MEDRS. In a way, some people get damaged by lots of stuff: rock music, horror movies, some autistic children fear and tremble because of Sinterklaas, etc., there is nothing 100% safe in our culture, even the Teletubbies have been called Satanic by some. Tgeorgescu (talk) 02:52, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

Blog
According to, the blog seems legit (belonging to mainstream scientists). Yup, it redirects there. Tgeorgescu (talk) 19:49, 14 April 2019 (UTC)
 * My mistake! I mistook it for the similarly named blog that their domain redirect was spoofing. - MrOllie (talk) 19:58, 14 April 2019 (UTC)
 * It looks like the additional reading is still removed. Can you undo the edit or should I add it back in? Yes, that website is authored entirely by terminal-degree scientists and therapists with links to primary sources, definitely not *the other* website. SecondaryEd2020 (talk) 21:25, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
 * There is a saying: "What you need to succeed? Try hard. What you need to fail? Try too hard." Tgeorgescu (talk) 23:34, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

The Great Porn Experiment (critique)
A Critique on “The Great Porn Experiment”

"In 2012 Gary Wilson gave a Ted Talk called The Great Porn Experiment where many claims were made that do not have scientific backing. These types of efforts to educate the public backfire by giving people misinformation that then affects such things as relationships, parenting strategies, sexual education, and even mental health treatment."

Sex Supplement: UBC researcher doubts "Great Porn Experiment" hypothesis

"Jason Winters, a sessional lecturer on human sexuality in the department of psychology at UBC, finds Wilson’s claims troubling and unethical.

“There is no research showing that Internet pornography causes mental disorders – none,” Winters wrote in his class blog. “Psychological problems and mental disorders can lead to problematic porn use as a means to cope and self-medicate.

“Wilson is simply presenting his ideology as fact,” wrote Winters, “and in this case, it’s dangerous.”"

Op-ed by Neuroscientists stating “Fight the New Drug” Misrepresents Science

"What it does mean is that pornography does not mimic cocaine. And telling kids that it does has shown to have negative ramifications as to how they view themselves and their sexual development/curiosity. It also has implications on how people perceive themselves and their partners when labeling from a disease model instead of looking at other reasons that may be underlying why people might be viewing sex films to begin with — and who gets to decide when this is or isn’t a problem."

What do you think of the TEDx talk "The Great porn Experiment"?

"You can tell that Wilson is not a scientist and has no academic credentials because he gets the very first and most basic principle of science. Completely wrong. A scientist tries to falsify his hypothesis. If a scientist has an idea, like “porn causes brain damage,” he tries to find evidence that his idea is wrong, not that it is right. Falsifiability is one of the defining characteristics of a scientific idea. The more the idea resists being disproven, the more trust one can place in it. When you do what Gary Wilson does, which is assume your hypothesis is correct and the only look for evidence that supports it, while ignoring evidence that disproves it, then what you are doing is not science and you are not a scientist. No matter how many footnotes you use."

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.159.33.167 (talk) 15:28, 30 March 2019 (UTC)
 * That's a red herring. Wilson and FTND are preachers, not researchers. They don't publish with peer-review. It's a category mistake: their purpose has never been finding out the truth about porn addiction. Their purpose is to convince as many people as possible that porn is bad for them. They're not interested in the scientific truth, since a nuanced understanding can only hamper their preaching efforts. Tgeorgescu (talk) 11:16, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

Addiction or something else?
Either there is porn addiction or people don't suffer from watching porn is a false dilemma. There are other options, such as OCD/impulse control disorder. So it is not that porn addiction is competing against non-existence of symptoms, but it is competing against other models which are preferred by experts, or better account for the available evidence. Tgeorgescu (talk) 10:43, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

Majority opinion
The opinion of the associate professor E.T.M. Laan renders the majority view, namely that most sexologists do not believe in pornography addiction. Tgeorgescu (talk) 16:52, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

These being said, the Zeitgeist seems unfavorable to the concept of addiction. This is, medical and psychological research prefers the model of compulsion to the model of addiction, so there is extremely small chance that pornography addiction would get accepted, i.e. as being an addiction instead of being a compulsion. This also applies to sex addiction and masturbation addiction. It's the way things are, see WP:RGW. I know that addiction is very popular in non-scientific press, but no more than that: in the scientific community it seems to have lost the dispute. Tgeorgescu (talk) 17:35, 18 October 2018 (UTC)


 * I would like to point out that addiction is a brain disease, and thus jurisdiction over the concept of pornography addiction should be based on neurology, not psychology. Psychologists are not neurologists, and therefor not experts on addiction.


 * The wikipedia page on addiction describes it as:
 * "Addiction is a brain disorder characterized by compulsive engagement in rewarding stimuli despite adverse consequences."


 * But more importantly, the landmark neurology paper 'Cellular basis of memory for addiction describes addiction this way:
 * "Despite the importance of numerous psychosocial factors, at its core, drug addiction involves a biological process: the ability of repeated exposure to a drug of abuse to induce changes in a vulnerable brain that drive the compulsive seeking and taking of drugs, and loss of control over drug use, that define a state of addiction"
 * https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3898681/


 * And the American Society of Addiction Medicine (ASAM) defines addiction:
 * "Addiction is a primary*, chronic disease of brain reward, motivation, memory and related circuitry. Dysfunction in these circuits leads to characteristic biological, psychological, social and spiritual manifestations. This is reflected in an individual pathologically pursuing reward and/or relief by substance use and other behaviors."
 * https://www.asam.org/resources/definition-of-addiction


 * Primary, meaning it is not the result of secondary causes.XBiophagex (talk) 03:58, 1 November 2018 (UTC)


 * Well, MDs and psychologists have downplayed the model of addiction, e.g. DSM-5 has no addictions, it has compulsions. So it is kind of irrelevant what ASAM says, they seem to have fallen out of favor.

"Note that the word addiction is not applied as a diagnostic term in this classification, although it is in common usage in many countries to describe severe problems related to compulsive and habitual use of substances."

- DSM-5


 * Quoted by Tgeorgescu (talk) 11:10, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

Pornography addiction is a very popular concept for some parties: the idea of casting every positive-reinforcing activity as addiction appeals to a very American puritan instinct, as well as offering opportunities to researchers to expand their work, with both types of appeal being linked to a genuine desire to do good.

I don't have any medical expertise, so I cannot weigh in on this one way or another. I'm certainly not going to get involved in turf wars between neurologists, psychologists and psychiatrists, and whether one arm of the profession can pull rank on another.

Fortunately, we have the NPOV policy to deal with these sorts of cases, and we have a policy of weighing official consensus of experts based on systematic reviews, meta-analyses, etc, as stronger evidence than recent research, regardless of how valid or otherwise it may be. I think we can regard the position of the ICD-10 and DSM-V, which represents the cautious and considered position of the medical profession in its entirety, as definitive for the time being, and not attempt to litigate the issue here. If and when medical consensus changes, of course, so should this article. -- The Anome (talk) 13:55, 26 November 2018 (UTC)


 * Yup, technically speaking, absence of evidence is... absence of evidence, not evidence of absence. Tgeorgescu (talk) 09:06, 27 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Pornography addiction can't be assessed in preclinical addiction models the same way a sexual addiction can since pornography is a uniquely human "stimulus"; i.e., rat porn isn't a thing. Preclinical models of sexual addiction don't reflect upon pornography addiction.  In any event, per the refs in the addiction infobox, the term "addiction" is synonymous with a severe substance use disorder in the DSM-5. Edit: just to clarify, addiction is diagnosed as a substance use disorder, not a compulsion. As for behavioral addictions, see: .  Seppi  333  (Insert 2¢) 12:08, 18 April 2019 (UTC)


 * Yup, that's part of the argument why it is unknowable whether porn addiction exists: it cannot be studied upon other animals and DeltaFosB can only be studied upon corpses (postmortem). Tgeorgescu (talk) 17:39, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

Treatment: Research is ongoing on the role of the NMDA receptor system and it's role in substance abuse, neuroplasticity changes, sensitization, cue responses, neurodegenerative diseases and excititory toxicity. One promising option for preventing these same effects due to heavy porn addiction which appears to be the main cause of the rapid change in males who have sexual dysfunction under the age of 40.


 * Magnesium could have potential in preventing the downward spiral of porn addiction and the negative effects on physical and mental health that pornography causes. Research is ongoing on the medical benefits of magnesium for it's effects on the NMDA receptors as magnesium is a partial NMDA antagonist. There is a growing volume of research into the relationship of the N-methyl-D-aspartate (NMDA)receptor system and it's role in neurodegenerative disorders, substance abuse disorders, depression and a variety of physical and mental conditions resultant of porn addiction and the many similiarities that this visual stimulus and psychostimulant addiction's effects on human's and the role of NMDA receptor antagonists in mitigating the damage and changes in the brain's structure and behavioral changes.         — Preceding unsigned comment added by AllboutmagnesiumNMDAstuff (talk • contribs) 21:04, 8 October 2019 (UTC)


 * First, we don't know if porn addiction exists. Alternative is OCD/impulse control disorder (i.e. not addiction). Second, per WP:MEDRS we need WP:SOURCES which fulfill two conditions: indexed for MEDLINE and systematic reviews. WP:PRIMARY studies are discarded by default. Third, MDPI is discarded as unreliable publisher. Fourth, Wikipedia isn't a reliable source, see WP:CIRCULAR. Fifth, per WP:OR and WP:SYNTH anything smacking of original research (i.e. not supported verbatim by the written sources) is banned from Wikipedia. Tgeorgescu (talk) 21:58, 8 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Eh... I have two points to make. One is that the efficacy of magnesium for drug addiction has been reviewed in a pubmed-indexed medical journal article and it is fairly consistent with what has been described above.  It's also covered on Wikipedia here: Amphetamine.  The second point, as stated in the section text of this link, is that magnesium is not an effective monotherapy for addiction.  So, assuming that the compulsive use of pornography exhibited by a number of individuals is an addiction phenotype and not an impulse control disorder phenotype, supplemental magnesium alone won't effectively inhibit its development or adequately treat it.  Seppi  333  (Insert 2¢) 07:59, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Just to illustrate why that is the case (for amphetamine and sexual addiction), if you scroll up slightly from the pharmacological treatments link, you will see a signaling pathway diagram. Sexual addiction and amphetamine addiction are both mediated through the exact same two signaling cascades; the first signaling cascade at the top of that image is initiated via signal transduction through NMDA receptor complexes.  Signal transduction through the second pathway is initiated by D1-type dopamine receptors, particularly the D1 receptor. Partial blockade of the NMDA receptor will necessarily impinge upon ΔFosB induction that arises from signaling through the NMDA signaling pathway, but it does nothing to inhibit D1 receptor signaling; moreover, the development of a psychostimulant addiction occurs largely through the chronic overactivation of dopamine receptors, as would might expect, simply because the pharmacodynamics of addictive psychostimulants in dopamine neurons involves a common mode of action: they're either direct agonists or indirect agonists of those receptors.  Seppi  333  (Insert 2¢) 08:17, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Well, I did not hold any view upon the magnesium claim. I just stated that that's not the way to enter medical information inside Wikipedia. It was about the references, not about the claim. Tgeorgescu (talk) 19:32, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

Recent edits
MDPI is not a WP:MEDRS-compliant publisher (in the past was on Beall's List). In other words, it is indeed a review, but not indexed for MEDLINE. Also if I have to guess the rest of the text is a copyright violation. Tgeorgescu (talk) 01:39, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

Anastasia.Shylnov, I reverted this because we need to stick to WP:MEDRS-compliant sources for biomedical material. For example, we should typically avoid primary sources. See WP:Primary sources and WP:SCHOLARSHIP.

Also, peer review is not the same thing as literature review. Please read and study WP:MEDRS. It is clear about the type of sourcing you should be using, and this begins with its introduction: "Ideal sources for biomedical information include: review articles (especially systematic reviews) published in reputable medical journals; academic and professional books written by experts in the relevant fields and from respected publishers; and guidelines or position statements from national or international expert bodies. Primary sources should generally not be used for medical content – as such sources often include unreliable or preliminary information, for example early in vitro results which don't hold in later clinical trials." You should be looking for secondary sources and, to a lesser extent, tertiary sources. You can look on Google Books if that will help. It often helps me. If you haven't looked on PubMed, look on there as well. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 11:22, 9 November 2019 (UTC)


 * About the YouTube speech, see Talk:Masturbation/Archive 10 &mdash; his TEDx speech was weighed and found wanting. Further, Wilson is not a scientist, he is a preacher/activist. He is not interested in the objective truth, since a nuanced understanding can only hamper his preaching efforts. In the most favorable to him scenario, mainstream science will say that a small percentage of the population is susceptible to porn addiction. And in the most likely scenario, it is a compulsive disorder, not an addiction. CSBD from ICD-11 isn't an addiction and DSM-5 has terminated with the diagnosis "addiction". This might seem like parsing words, but for psychiatrists and psychologists there is a huge difference between addiction and compulsive disorder. Tgeorgescu (talk) 15:02, 10 November 2019 (UTC)


 * I have only used the term CSB? Not addiction...so I am not sure what point you seem to believe you are enlightening me with, in regards to your tangent. Gambling addiction was also once considered solely a compulsive disorder, until further evidence showed otherwise. You don't seem entirely objective, making fanciful claims about findings that haven't even been made yet. Anastasia.Shylnov (talk) 18:28, 10 November 2019 (UTC)


 * ICD-11 hasn't been approved yet, but it does not say "addiction". DSM-5 has already deprecated the term "addiction". Wilson says it's an addiction. But Wilson does not participate in the scientific debate, since he does not belong to the scientific community. These are facts. The consensus seems to be that porn OCD is extremely infrequent. What are more frequent are delusions like "porn made me bald/psychotic" or "if I stop fapping I get superpowers". Wilson neither has a PhD in a germane academic field, nor does he pass publish or perish. So Wilson does not write WP:RS. He was a teacher, not a professor. Tgeorgescu (talk) 00:55, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

Scientific fraud, retractions
See http://www.psychcrime.org/news/index.php?vd=2902&t=Former+Yale-NYU+Psychiatric+Researcher+Alexander+Neumeister+Convicted%2C+Sentenced Basically, his advocacy for a diagnosis of porn addiction was based upon faked data. So, if plagiarism is regarded as a mortal sin in the academia, then faking data should be regarded as the sin against the Holy Spirit. There were some Wikipedians who intentionally faked WP:Verifiable information or faked WP:RS, they were indeffed and when they asked to be unblocked, admins considered them irredeemable. And to top it off, fabricating sources? I've never seen anyone come back from that. said. All papers listed at https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-d&q=neumeister+site%3Ayourbrainonporn.com&oq=neumeister+site%3Ayourbrainonporn.com should be plonked. Once a fraudster, always a fraudster: none of his papers can be trusted. There was a similar case in the Netherlands, see Diederik Stapel. Confirmation from https://retractionwatch.com/2020/09/16/springer-nature-journal-takes-eight-months-to-retract-paper-after-us-government-misconduct-finding/ Tgeorgescu (talk) 05:44, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

Gary Wilson
About psychologist Gary Wilson: Wilson is not a psychologist (does he have any diploma I don't know of?), he is not a professor (never was), he is not a scientist (never was). And, above all, he does not have evidence for his claims, he just claims such claims because he has religious faith. As I have previously stated, But Wilson does not participate in the scientific debate, since he does not belong to the scientific community. These are facts. The consensus seems to be that porn OCD is extremely infrequent. What are more frequent are delusions like "porn made me bald/psychotic" or "if I stop fapping I get superpowers". Wilson neither has a PhD in a germane academic field, nor does he pass publish or perish. So Wilson does not write WP:RS. He was a teacher, not a professor. Tgeorgescu (talk) 11:47, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

Slow news
Searching at PubMed for meta-analyses and reviews for the keyword pornography, and excluding the papers not indexed for MEDLINE (especially MDPI), there is not much going on, the news are slow. I also found, but it so badly begs the question that porn addiction exists and that it has nefarious effects upon children that it cannot be considered reliable. It's fearmongering about porn and fearmongering about internet. It so heavily relies upon petitio principii that it's a joke. WP:REDFLAG. It's like claiming they can detect Bigfoot witnesses based on EEG. First produce evidence that Bigfoot exists, and we'll talk afterwards about witnesses. In doubt, we already have WP:RS that the jury is still out on the existence of the porn addiction, and some scientists speculate we will know the answer by Christmas 2025. Anyway, DSM-IV and DSM-5 have deprecated the term addiction, and ICD-11 employs the model of a sexual behavior compulsion, not the model of an addiction. So, yeah, porn compulsion or porn control impulse disorder seem much more likely to be recognized in the future as diagnoses than porn addiction. With the specification that porn OCD is considered to be extremely rare (epidemiologically infrequent) and that the claims that porn induces erectile dysfunction never got supported by enough evidence.

And what is more frequent are people self-diagnosing with porn addiction or being diagnosed with porn addiction by self-appointed experts which also happen to offer quite expensive therapy for porn addiction, which is not covered by the medical insurance since it's not an officially recognized diagnosis, and there are no recognized criteria for diagnosing people with such disorder. Accompanied by VIPs who claimed they did not cheat on their wives, but they were sex addicted, so they couldn't have behave properly.

The WP:BURDEN is not upon me to show that a term deprecated by the DSM and rejected by the ICD is unlikely to become a valid diagnosis in the near future. The jury is still out whether the whole phenomenon, which might be called porn addiction, porn compulsion, or porn impulse control disorder, is real. Therefore, seen by the WP:RULES of Wikipedia, claiming that Bigfoot exists is similar to claiming that porn addiction exists. While it is not settled that the whole phenomenon does not exist, it is highly unlikely that it will be called an addiction. In respect to the existence of the phenomenon, I have no dog in that fight, I don't have the science to decide such matter, and my opinion thereupon is irrelevant. What I can tell you for sure it is that it is extremely unlikely to have a diagnosis of porn adiction (with the accent upon addiction). Tgeorgescu (talk) 03:47, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

"“Historically the term ‘sex addiction’ has been used by white males to absolve themselves from personal and legal responsibility for their behaviors,” one expert said. “It is often used as an excuse to pathologize misogyny.”"

- NBC News

Quoted by Tgeorgescu (talk) 16:33, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

Mainstream medical journals
Hajela's article was not even indexed for PubMed, let alone MEDLINE, and Hilton's article was not indexed for MEDLINE. See WP:REDFLAG and WP:MEDRS. This shows that criticism of DSM's decision wasn't published in mainstream medical journals. Both of those journals are now defunct.

What about other sources mentioned in the article? For a start, most of those don't pretend to be research or novel contributions to medical science. The germane guideline is WP:PARITY. The two sides of the debate aren't equal, see WP:GEVAL. Why is that? Because the claim of porn addiction it is not a claim usually championed by sexologists, but by vocal outsiders. If anything, sexologists push for calmness in this debate and for collecting adequate evidence in order to eventually assert it in the future. I have cited a source which says it is not a claim of sexologists, but of the religious right. So, it is rather a political claim than a claim supported by mainstream science.

This means that Wikipedia does not give equal merit to the medical orthodoxy and to fringe medical science. Nor gives them equal coverage.

And about the effects of porn watching upon children/teens, there isn't much evidence, there is instead much speculation about brain plasticity. tgeorgescu (talk) 17:17, 11 June 2021 (UTC)


 * It may not be endorsed by sexologists but it does seem to be endorsed by addiction researchers (https://doi.org/10.3390/bs5030388, https://doi.org/10.1556/2006.2020.00035). As for whether religious people might feel more distressed by the use of pornography, that sounds more like a red herring than anything.


 * Regarding teenagers, see these: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12119-020-09771-z https://doi.org/10.1016/j.adolescence.2017.04.006 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pedhc.2019.10.001


 * Spidermario (talk) 23:34, 11 June 2021 (UTC)


 * You know WP:MEDRS: we use at least systematic literature reviews indexed for MEDLINE for medical claims inside Wikipedia, we don't use WP:PRIMARY studies. And we never use MDPI.
 * https://doi.org/10.3390/bs5030388 is MDPI, thus unusable;
 * https://doi.org/10.1556/2006.2020.00035 the concept of addiction has been deprecated since DSM-IV, they cannot turn the clock back;
 * https://doi.org/10.1007/s12119-020-09771-z not indexed for PubMed, nor for MEDLINE;
 * https://doi.org/10.1016/j.adolescence.2017.04.006 admits there are no experimental data;
 * https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pedhc.2019.10.001 not a review; according to her children under 12 years who watch porn should be medically examined, but Mother Nature imposed no such age limits for spermarche and menarche; so that shows it is a rather arbitrary, hypocritical claim; and, yup, such children are of nubile age in several US states: they have the legal right to get married but not that of watching porn; and that is unlikely to change since the Christian right is against porn, not against child marriages.
 * Basically, studies which are not grounded in empirical data are just opinion pieces (garbage in, garbage out).
 * Again, pornography addiction is a WP:FRINGE theory, that's why WP:PARITY applies. Pornography OCD seems to exist, but it is exceedingly infrequent.
 * Porn addiction is a political and religious claim; porn OCD is a medical and scientific claim. Porn addiction was from the very beginning a claim smacking of political intrigue, true believers and quackery.
 * You might ask why Hilton wrote that article. Well, he is a publicly known Mormon and he knee-jerk endorses the war against pornography of the LDS Church. This is apparent in the fact he was spewing paranoid conspiracy theories against the legacy of Alfred Kinsey.
 * Experts in addiction sounds as time is passing increasingly like experts in phlogiston. The paradigm of addiction is increasingly being deprecated. Sounds more like a paradigm of the 1960's. tgeorgescu (talk) 15:33, 12 June 2021 (UTC)


 * Why not? “Deprecated” also seems like a strong word, all I see is that they avoid the word as a diagnostic term, in part because of “potentially negative connotation”. They even still include it in their Glossary of Technical Terms (p. 825, emphasis theirs):
 * "nonsubstance addiction(s) Behavioral disorder (also called behavioral addiction) not related to any substance of abuse that shares some features with substance-induced addiction."
 * There may not be experimental data but there is observational data, ergo, tentative evidence, not just opinions.
 * Well, if you want to discuss political motivations, we can look at AASECT’s statement (cited here):
 * "Destigmatizing human sexual expression and experiences as well as creating and maintaining safe space for those who have been traditionally marginalized are essential practices for AASECT members who are predominately mental health practitioners and educators. This overarching goal compels AASECT to disavow any therapeutic and educational effort that, even if unwittingly, violates or impinges on AASECT’s vision of human rights and social justice."
 * Which certainly sounds like a noble goal but seems to be based mostly on the evidence of harm from specific pathologizations such as that of homosexuality (which was rightfully removed from newer editions of the DSM and ICD). If the potential for stigmatization is a sufficient reason not to endorse a diagnosis, why diagnose anything at all (sex-related or not)? We might as well throw out the entirety of the DSM. Spidermario (talk) 20:39, 12 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Proclaiming a diagnosis is not only a matter of hard science, but also can open the door to all sorts of social, religious or political abuses of psychiatry. So, proclaiming a diagnosis involves adequately solving such ethical dilemmas: the harm due to proclaiming a diagnosis should not be greater than the harm it purports to solve. As Hayek argued in The Constitution of Liberty, most evil in history came from efforts to stamp out certain evils.
 * The quote is about Wikipedia, but mutatis mutandis it applies to the relationship between AASECT and the Christian right in proclaiming a diagnosis of porn addiction. In the hands of the Christian right, such diagnosis will be a tool for stigmatizing and oppressing people. And a tool for white male felons to avoid taking legal responsibility for their own actions.
 * "it is indeed probable that more harm and misery have been caused by men determined to use coercion to stamp out a moral evil than by men intent on doing evil."
 * Proclaiming a diagnosis is not only a matter of hard science, but also can open the door to all sorts of social, religious or political abuses of psychiatry. So, proclaiming a diagnosis involves adequately solving such ethical dilemmas: the harm due to proclaiming a diagnosis should not be greater than the harm it purports to solve. As Hayek argued in The Constitution of Liberty, most evil in history came from efforts to stamp out certain evils.
 * The quote is about Wikipedia, but mutatis mutandis it applies to the relationship between AASECT and the Christian right in proclaiming a diagnosis of porn addiction. In the hands of the Christian right, such diagnosis will be a tool for stigmatizing and oppressing people. And a tool for white male felons to avoid taking legal responsibility for their own actions.
 * "it is indeed probable that more harm and misery have been caused by men determined to use coercion to stamp out a moral evil than by men intent on doing evil."
 * "it is indeed probable that more harm and misery have been caused by men determined to use coercion to stamp out a moral evil than by men intent on doing evil."

- Hayek


 * Quoted by tgeorgescu.
 * And the reason why addiction has been deprecated is that the models of compulsion and addiction cancel each other out. If you want to make a psychiatrist or psychologist angry, you should conflate between compulsion and addiction.
 * Conclusion: porn addiction is hate speech. That it was since its inception and it cannot change. It is simply a label meant to promote discrimination. It's like selling soap made of Jewish fat&mdash;regardless of whether it's a myth, such soap is sold in order to promote white supremacy.
 * Juries no longer fall for the Devil forced me to do it, but they fall for porn forced me to do it. And then lots of money flow for scientifically unsound therapies which purport to cure people of porn. Such clinics are quackery.
 * Porn addiction is a diagnosis promoted by quacks, religious loons and white supremacists.
 * The narrative of porn addiction is a paranoid conspiracy theory that has little to do with evidence-based medicine and empirical science.
 * The claim of porn addiction has been produced by science to the same extent cargo cults have been produced by aeronautical engineering.
 * One thing psychiatry does not do is cheap moralism. So, wherever cheap moralism raises its head, you should know that is not science, nor medical practice.
 * So, the label of porn addiction is a label that has been abused and oversold, it is irreparably broken. Words matter, language matters. ICD-11 chose for a diagnosis of CSBD, which is not the same as porn addiction or sex addiction. Same as a KKK robe is associated with racist lynchings and no longer with traditional garments of Spanish penitents.
 * Porn addiction is an idea which has been wholly compromised; it is irredeemable. tgeorgescu (talk) 19:37, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

ASAM
Seen https://www.google.com/search?q=site%3Aasam.org+pornography&client=firefox-b-d, ASAM is particularly quiet about porn addiction. tgeorgescu (talk) 10:23, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

DSM-5-TR
It seems that DSM-5-TR, the Bible of psychiatry since March 2022, will cream YBOP/TGPE/NoFap/FTND. Since I don't want to repeat what I wrote, see Talk:NoFap. tgeorgescu (talk) 01:12, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 19 August 2019 and 29 November 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Anastasia.Shylnov. Peer reviewers: Amilon3, MoetDaPoet.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 06:59, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 23 August 2021 and 8 December 2021. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): MAderinsola. Peer reviewers: IIT JPeters, Ageorgescu1698.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 02:33, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

The page is wrong and sources indicate can harm people
The article says "The status of pornography addiction as an addictive disorder, rather than simply a compulsivity, has been hotly contested." in contrast to this which indicates it isn't contested at all:

"Websites and advocacy groups that promote and encourage identification as porn addicts are doing harm to their followers, and can become like the hucksters promoting naturopathic treatment despite federal medical groups identifying such treatments as ineffective and potentially harmful. Ultimately, all should be held accountable for their inaccurate, outdated, and exploitative actions. article continues after advertisement

It is noteworthy that in this research, and in the numerous commentaries in response, no one is defending the porn-addiction model. None of the researchers looking at data on porn-related problems have chosen to argue that an addiction model or treatment strategy is appropriate. To be sure, some researchers still defend a compulsive model, or suggest that pornography itself is too broad a concept to be neatly captured by a single theory. The editors of the Archives of Sexual Behavior invited commentaries on this article only from researchers, who must argue based on science, as opposed to anecdote. None of them argue that porn is addictive, that it changes the brain or one's sexuality, or that the use of porn leads to tolerance, withdrawal, or other addiction-related syndromes. Put simply, while the nuance of porn-related problems is still being sussed out, the idea that porn can be called addictive is done, at least in the halls of sexual science." https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/women-who-stray/201808/science-stopped-believing-in-porn-addiction-you-should-too

This article can cause harm

"This means that the large-scale promotion of the concept of “porn addiction,” in the media, on the Internet, by self-proclaimed experts and by an industry that preys off of an unrecognized disorder, appear to actually be hurting people. By telling people that their use of porn constitutes a disease, they are promulgating suffering and anxiety, instilling into people that their use of pornography means there is something wrong with them, and that this use has potentially dire consequences." - https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/women-who-stray/201509/your-belief-in-porn-addiction-makes-things-worse<

See also: https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/basics/porn-addiction

Gripdamage (talk) 23:39, 13 October 2021 (UTC)


 * Having an article on porn addiction is not the same as endorsing the idea of porn addiction.
 * What does the article say:
 * no evidence;
 * not a real diagnosis. tgeorgescu (talk) 09:26, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

Propaganda
It is properly called propaganda, since it is pseudoscientific and antiscientific. Besides, it's sourced. tgeorgescu (talk) 19:34, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

ICD-11
CSBD from ICD-11 has explicitly ruled out addiction. tgeorgescu (talk) 14:05, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

My own take
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) 07:00, 19 April 2022 (UTC)


 * It can be unlikely but it's there and it's real. Seriousnes (talk) 12:37, 16 June 2022 (UTC)


 * OCD or impulse control disorder preempt addiction.
 * And lo and behold: tgeorgescu (talk)  17:28, 16 June 2022 (UTC)

Okay, what's wrong with it? People who conflate depression, OCD, borderline, or religious guilt with porn addiction should not get treated for porn consumption, but for depression, OCD, borderline, or religious guilt. A psychiatrist is not like a waiter who brings one the demanded dish, but they are actively in charge of treatment.

People who take medicines and lose capability of erection should ask their MD for changing their medicines. They should not quit their medication, just change it. Refraining from PMO does not heal real diseases, so it's not a substitute for medication.

People who have marriage problems because of porn use should consume the porn together with their partner. And porn is rarely the single reason which breaks a marriage. Perhaps it is the most click-baiting title for an article, but never the final reason for divorce.

For these reasons organized skepticism sees porn addiction as lacking epistemic warrant. You'd think that 22 years since broadband internet, there would have been plenty of evidence for sex addiction or porn addiction. But DSM-5-TR explicitly says it's not the case.

Besides, the label of porn addiction has been tainted with praying the gay away, promoting suicide, telling the court "porn made me do it" in order to dodge personal responsibility, white supremacy, and so on. Totalitarian countries/movements have a taboo about masturbation and pornography.

I don't think that YBOP was an ill-willed enterprise, but it is scientifically misguided. Their narrative about "porn shills" who write scientific research as denialism is just a conspiracy theory. The only MDs paid by Big Porn are those detecting STDs in porn actors, and they are not the ones who write porn research. YBOP's failure was indiscriminately collecting research which supports their POV, regardless of how dodgy the papers are.

What about ICD-11 with CSBD? While the underlying literature are respectable studies about addiction, there is no sex research therein, which is a big WP:REDFLAG.

YBOP and NoFap broke the golden rule of patient organizations: if you have to disagree, disagree respectfully, but never seek to vilify the scientific and medical authorities. Their strategy is rhetorically effective in respect to their fan base, but cuts no ice in mainstream science. tgeorgescu (talk) 07:58, 15 August 2022 (UTC)

Controversial
Removal of "controversial" does not abide by WP:NPOV. Further, 94 WP:RS are WP:CITED inside our article. Why you find that number insufficient?

Why is it controversial? According to the American Psychiatric Association there is no such thing as porn addiction. And even ICD-11 (which AFAIK is still not applicable in US) has been lambasted for the fact that there is no sex research in CSBD. Without such research it is a diagnosis established by fiat, i.e. not evidence-based. tgeorgescu (talk) 09:15, 22 December 2022 (UTC)

A short Review and Criticism about the Child and Youth section.
I reviewed that section: "The role pornography watching plays in the development of children and youth is basically unknown, due to a lack of empirical studies. There are considerable ethical problems with performing such research. Since those problems are a huge obstacle, it is likely that such research will not be allowed, thus possibly it could never be known. Rory Reid (UCLA) declared "Universities don't want their name on the front page of a newspaper for an unethical study exposing minors to porn.".

The first Source [1 ], only considers effects on adolescents brain and not development of children and youth, nor are children mentioned in that context in the source. There is research about adolescent and effects of porn, just not in the field of brain effects (for review see [2 ] [3 ]), which goes even back to the year 1973 [4 ].

The second source [5 ] doesnt mention anything stated above, experimental research about pornography and adolescent are ethicaly not possible [6 ] (page 3.) which dosent mean that no research is possible, surveys are possible,

And the third source [7 ] is just an unrelyable medical source.

I would therefore say that, that section should be deleted. The Other Karma (talk) 18:52, 25 December 2022 (UTC)


 * Rory C. Reid review did not even got indexed for PubMed, forget about MEDLINE. That's a WP:REDFLAG according to WP:MEDRS.


 * Dallas News is not making any medical claims, it is not a medical source at all. It only renders the view of one of the authors of the aforementioned review (which you seem to consider reliable).


 * only considers effects on adolescents brain and not development of children and youth, nor are children mentioned in that context in the source is a contradiction, I cannot make heads or tails out of it. Anyway, its conclusion is "The literature suggests that the adolescent brain may indeed be more sensitive to sexually explicit material, but due to a lack of empirical studies this question cannot be answered definitively."


 * Valkenburg 20 years review: "However, this evidence is still preliminary, as it needs to be interpreted in the context of at least four shortcomings and four more general biases in the literature."


 * Binik et al. say there are ethical limits to research, especially in respect to minors.


 * "About assumed absence of studies on the effects of pornography on children meant it had no effect&mdash;no, I was not assuming that. I simply stated that no evidence=no knowledge. So, it has no known effects. And, yes, the authors of the review have an opinion, but there is no particular reason to trust their opinion, since they admit it is not based upon empirical evidence. And they don't even say if that's good or bad. Simply because young adults get different norms and values, it cannot be automatically equated with 'harmful'. Just because pornography disproportionately favors one side of the culture wars doesn't mean it's harmful. This boils down to: the claim that watching pornography is bad for teenagers is a political rather than scientific claim. Zillmann's decreased respect for long-term monogamous relationships, and an attenuated desire for procreation are politically undesirable effects, not medically undesirable effects. About the edit, see https://revisesociology.com/2016/05/29/sociology-value-freedom/ So, these are not medically or sociologically undesirable effects, but politically undesirable, as seen by the GOP. There are lots of progressives who disagree that these effects are morally or politically undesirable. So, yeah, Zillmann conflated the judgment of empirical science with his own political activism. He was entirely free to support conservative politics, but that should never be conflated with science. It's none of the business of sociology to tell you if such effects are desirable or undesirable. Those who propagate such crude moralism are not writing sociology. Nor psychiatry. Any undergraduate student from the sociology and psychology faculties which I have attended could tell you for a fact that sociologists and psychologists are not getting paid to write such moralistic craps.Even if you wholeheartedly support family values, you will agree that in a free country other grownups are entitled to disagree with your choice.This jeremiad is entirely fitting for the language of 19th century sociology: Prolonged consumption of common pornography spawns doubts about the value of marriage as an essential societal institution and about its future viability. Such language is obsolete by the standards of the 1960's.And the various studies which did empirically investigate the matter (e.g. Miranda Horvath and Marleen Katayama-Klaassen) put their readers on a steady diet of low correlation and causality cannot be shown. tgeorgescu (talk) 14:26, 15 August 2022 (UTC)"


 * "WP:REDFLAG because To begin, the vast majority of research utilized nonexperimental, cross-sectional designs. This type of methodology tells us nothing about the causal impact of SEM and SVM exposure on DV and SV attitudes and behaviors. Rodenhizer and Edwards (2017). So, welcome to the world of medical porn research, wherein causality can seldom be shown.Doran and Price (2014) is not indexed at all for PubMed.About Research shows a clear association between pornography and sexual and dating violence. Across 43 studies, teens and young adults who consume more sexually explicit and sexually violent media were six times more likely to be sexually aggressive toward others we know the mantra correlation does not imply causation, but the quote offered is too bold and cocky, since it suggests much too much a causal link between pornography and sexual and dating violence. I mean: for the medical professional, it doesn't, but for the 'laity', it does. Even journalists who lack scientific literacy could be fooled by such incendiary statements. It takes high scientific literacy to see through such statements. So, such statements are misleading because we write for a general audience. We do not write for experts.Basically, there are no empirical data about the impact of porn upon youth. Most studies thereupon are navel-gazing, instead of responsible statistical processing of empirical data.E.g. this is a PhD research thereupon from the Netherlands: https://www.uva.nl/binaries/content/assets/uva/nl/onderzoek/promoveren/samenvattingen/2020/01/samenvatting-klaassen-marleen.pdfIts conclusion: low statistical correlation and causality cannot be shown.See its precedent upon https://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2014/08/14/children-who-access-internet-porn-more-likely-to-have-sex-younger_n_7365794.html Miranda Horvath stated about this: 'But it is not possible to establish causation from correlational studies, and to say whether pornography is changing or reinforcing attitudes.' Source: https://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-22987051Positive knowledge (as opposed to speculation or moralism) is extremely hard to come by, and to the extent that it exists, it does not support the bold claims of the moralists.Or, as the biologist Steve Jones, Emeritus Professor of Genetics at University College London said about something else 'a classic case of Arts Faculty science. Never mind the hypothesis, give me the data, and there aren’t any'.The problem with researching porn effects upon teens is, as Rory Reid (UCLA) declared 'Universities don't want their name on the front page of a newspaper for an unethical study exposing minors to porn.' Suppose an evil dictator would solve such problem, well, this would be only solving the minor problem. The major problem is finding a control group, i.e. teens who have never watched porn. Even if those teens take an oath on the Bible that they have never watched porn, that still isn't conclusive evidence that they have never watched porn. Teens lie a lot, especially if they have to tell about their own porn consumption while their parents are religiously conservative.Peter and Valkenburg (2016) 20 years review: causality cannot be shown. Brown and Wisco (2019) review: idem ditto. tgeorgescu (talk) 23:39, 2 October 2022 (UTC)"


 * Drawing the conclusion: there are empirical studies about minors and porn, but their results are far from spectacular. tgeorgescu (talk) 08:48, 26 December 2022 (UTC)
 * I was just about to criticise your text and send the text to it, and now there's something new ;-; The Other Karma (talk) 08:53, 26 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Thats true Rory C. Reids review is not in MEDLINE.
 * For Dallas News, i would say there is a connection to Medical, as Valkenburg review already said "The first shortcoming in the literature on adolescents and pornography refers to the operationalization of pornography use.", in conection with "whether the focus is on Internet-based pornography or other types; and whether Playboy-type nudity is included in the assessment of pornography use next to more explicit material" (as other reviews also said [1 ]P.10, [2 ] P.7 ) wich implies, that researchers do not refere to the lawfull deffinition of Pornograpy, wich is a huge problem, since the sicentific results arnt applyable to the lawfull definition. Which dosnt mean that they are wrong, but rather the direction is unknown.
 * And speaking of Valkenburg's review, how should I actually interpret the studies in the paper, Valkenburg's studies from before are often not in journals that are in MEDLINE, so is part of the review invalid/wrong/unrelyable according to MEDRS, while being leading papers about the topic? And (systematic) reviews do usually also not look if the studys are in MEDLINE or not, how should i handle that?
 * For only considers effects on adolescents brain and not development of children and youth, nor are children mentioned in that context in the source, Thats true its conclusion is "The literature suggests that the adolescent brain may indeed be more sensitive to sexually explicit material, but due to a lack of empirical studies this question cannot be answered definitively.", but its wrong to imply with that review that no research is possible at all, as i said up above. Properly written, it should say that porn may have stronger effects on the brains of teenagers, but since there is no research on this topic, the question cannot be answered (definitively).
 * Binik et al. meh, okay, a bit bended, but fine, i may critesise it in the future.
 * For the new text:
 * "WP:REDFLAG because To begin, the vast majority of research utilized nonexperimental, cross-sectional designs. This type of methodology tells us nothing about the causal impact of SEM and SVM exposure on DV and SV attitudes and behaviors. Rodenhizer and Edwards (2017). So, welcome to the world of medical porn research, wherein causality can seldom be shown.
 * Doran and Price (2014) is not indexed at all for PubMed."
 * And the rest...
 * What are you refering to, i dont have them as a source? The Other Karma (talk) 09:06, 26 December 2022 (UTC)


 * Indexation for MEDLINE is a restriction concerning Wikipedians, not scientists who write systematic reviews. It is true that those reviews generally speaking have to be indexed for MEDLINE in order to be quotable inside Wikipedia for making medical claims.


 * The other reviews concern.


 * Besides, according to DSM-5 and DSM-5-TR, masturbation and pornography are generally speaking not mental health issues, age of the subject being unspecified, i.e. the American Psychiatric Association does not claim therein than porn is a mental health issue for teenagers. While they do not seek to overturn the legal age limit for watching pornographic movies, they do not seem to endorse it either. They keep their neutrality upon this ethic-legal issue. That teenagers are able to watch porn upon their mobile phones does not seem to be a cause of concern for APA. tgeorgescu (talk) 09:54, 26 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Interessting thanks!, what do you mean with "The other reviews concern [2 ]."?
 * Masturbation and pornography as a mental health issues, i heard a bit about that in the american world. But in my country i havnt heard raely something about that, american problem change my mind. The Other Karma (talk) 09:55, 26 December 2022 (UTC)


 * Yup, I live in the Netherlands. Dutch psychiatrists follow the DSM. If it is not diagnosed according to the DSM, medical insurance won't pay for it. Technically, there is a difference between diagnosis and classification, but in practice they should follow the DSM.
 * I meant that I had removed those reviews from the article for the reasons which I had already explained above. tgeorgescu (talk) 11:06, 26 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Uhh, okayy... Why... did you tell ME about, that?
 * I have nothing to do with those papers??? The Other Karma (talk) 13:22, 26 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Do you have any arguments against my proposed amendment?
 * If not, I will change the text to better fit the source text. The Other Karma (talk) 13:51, 26 December 2022 (UTC)
 * I don't know what your amendment is. tgeorgescu (talk) 13:59, 26 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Then i start again,
 * The first Source [1 ], only considers effects on adolescents brain and not development of children and youth, nor are children mentioned in that context in the source. There is research about adolescent and effects of porn, just not in the field of brain effects (for review see [3 ]), which goes even back to the year 1973 [4 ].
 * As i already said, saying "The role pornography watching plays in the development of children and youth is basically unknown, due to a lack of empirical studies", is therefore wrong!
 * I would therefore propose to change the first sentence, from: "The role pornography watching plays in the development of children and youth is basically unknown, due to a lack of empirical studies" to "Adolescent may be more sensitive to sexually explicit material, but due to the lack of empirical studies this question cannot be answered.
 * Which makes it more accurate to the original source, and correct.
 * Any more questions? The Other Karma (talk) 15:19, 26 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Valkenburg 20 years review does not really (or definitively) answer the question, whether is it about brain or development.
 * Meaning: 20 years have passed and mainstream science still does not know the answer.
 * Whatever Peter and Valkenburg (2016) have found that the effects of pornography are, their conclusion is very tentative (i.e. shoddy).
 * And God forbid, don't expect research about teens and porn to endorse the pseudoscientific concept of porn addiction, that would be ultimate evidence of scientific inanity. DSM-5-TR has been published this year and gave the lie to Gary Wilson's "preponderance of evidence" claim. tgeorgescu (talk) 16:46, 26 December 2022 (UTC)
 * That's right, but that's not what I'm about??
 * What i mean is that the old text, says that there is no research at all! Which is wrong, thats what i have disproven with the valkenburg review?
 * And please don't insinuate things that I haven't said... The Other Karma (talk) 18:46, 26 December 2022 (UTC)
 * This discussion is getting too emotional for me, so I'm going to leave it, lest it go in a negative direction.
 * But still thx, for your respones, and help to understand enWP better. The Other Karma (talk) 19:00, 26 December 2022 (UTC)
 * "Lack of empirical studies" is not my claim, but it is WP:V in Brown and Wisco (2019).
 * Postmodernists use to say "the field is messy", meaning there is not one coherent theory/view which accounts for all contradictions existent in the field. E.g. I followed a Bible course from Bar Ilan University and the professor said that there is no one theory which perfectly accounts for the Hebrew Bible, since the Hebrew Bible is a very complex and diverse collection of books.
 * You should also know that once mainstream science reaches a clear-cut consensus, I kowtow to it inside Wikipedia.
 * Also, I don't understand the difference between "influence upon the brain of..." and "influence upon the development of...". Or, more properly said, between "it affects their brain" and "it affects their development".
 * About too emotional: I write this with passion for mainstream science, but I don't have personally a dog in the fight. I keep it at an abstract level (scientific knowledge). I know that Wikipedia isn't for my personal ideas. tgeorgescu (talk) 06:56, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

2021 review
Porn research is often boring or tedious:


 * shown correlations are usually low;
 * causality cannot be shown;
 * research conclusions are often preliminary or tentative;
 * Malamuth stated for Quartz that in his years or research he did not find that pornography increases violence in general, but just in the lunatic fringe.

In short: there are no spectacular results. tgeorgescu (talk) 13:44, 5 February 2023 (UTC)
 * "he did not find that pornography increases violence in general " Big surprise. When I want to watch pornography or view erotic art, the main reason is to decrease my stress levels and to relax with works of escapism. So does my brother, though we have much different tastes. I have been viewing pornography on-and-off for nearly 30 years, and I have never had any violent outburst or even violent thoughts in connection with it. I have had much more angry reactions when listening to certain news items or political speeches. Dimadick (talk) 15:01, 6 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Yup, even in "violent" pornography it's fairly obvious they're just acting for the most part. E.g., the electric shocks are not real, they just act as shocked and sound effects are added during video editing. tgeorgescu (talk) 10:10, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

Dr. Trish Leigh
The medical orthodoxy largely sees neurofeedback as quackery. If she is an expert in neurofeedback, she is an expert in woo.

Hint: "specialized in neurofeedback" means WP:FRINGE, and the diagnosis of porn addiction is not recognized by the American Psychiatric Association. Nor is it recognized by the World Health Organization. So, she pretends to treat people for an illness having behind it as much evidence as morgellons and electromagnetic hypersensitivity.

Claims such as are rank pseudoscience, so they violate the website policy WP:PSCI.

When a certain PhD holder advises on YouTube other therapists to put a diagnosis of porn addiction, "since it is recognized by ICD-11" and there is a backdoor in DSM-5-TR, she likely advises them to commit insurance fraud: ICD-11 does not apply to US (yet), and ICD-11 does not recognize a diagnosis of "porn addiction". It is unlikely that ICD-11 will be adopted by US sooner than 2025. So, ICD-11 does not recognize it, and even if it did, that would still be void for a least a couple of years. tgeorgescu (talk) 21:49, 12 February 2023 (UTC)


 * I’m sorry, I thought she was a scientist Jm33746 (talk) 22:12, 12 February 2023 (UTC)


 * Is there anyplace for her research here Jm33746 (talk) 22:12, 12 February 2023 (UTC)


 * I did not know that she does research, anyway her claims you added to the article are against website policy.
 * In order to be better understood, it is easier to publish in The Lancet than in Wikipedia. See for details WP:MEDRS.
 * ICD-10 recognizes that there is such a thing as "excessive masturbation", but it nowhere claims that it would be an addiction. And it does not say whether masturbating three times a day would be excessive. tgeorgescu (talk) 23:17, 12 February 2023 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: Adult Development Winter 2023
— Assignment last updated by Nhollingsworth (talk) 20:55, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

Mainstream medical journals
Hajela's article was not even indexed for PubMed, let alone MEDLINE, and Hilton's article was not indexed for MEDLINE. See WP:REDFLAG and WP:MEDRS. This shows that criticism of DSM's decision wasn't published in mainstream medical journals. Both of those journals are now defunct.

What about other sources mentioned in the article? For a start, most of those don't pretend to be research or novel contributions to medical science. The germane guideline is WP:PARITY. The two sides of the debate aren't equal, see WP:GEVAL. Why is that? Because the claim of porn addiction it is not a claim usually championed by sexologists, but by vocal outsiders. If anything, sexologists push for calmness in this debate and for collecting adequate evidence in order to eventually assert it in the future. I have cited a source which says it is not a claim of sexologists, but of the religious right. So, it is rather a political claim than a claim supported by mainstream science.

This means that Wikipedia does not give equal merit to the medical orthodoxy and to fringe medical science. Nor gives them equal coverage.

And about the effects of porn watching upon children/teens, there isn't much evidence, there is instead much speculation about brain plasticity. tgeorgescu (talk) 17:17, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

And, yup, while being an anti-pornography crusader is not a reason to dismiss a scientific paper out of hand, the lack of MEDLINE indexation, the fact that the journal is now defunct and it did not have a long history (to an expert librarian, that means something), and the WP:GEVAL policy, Hilton's paper should not be used to give the lie to DSM-5. If anything, DSM-5-TR gave the lie to Hilton's paper.

My analysis is the following: since DSM-5 agreed with Prause, not with Hilton, that was Prause's beginner's luck. After nine years, DSM-5-TR was published, this time it is no longer beginner's luck, but the result of mature scientific debate, and APA even chose to discard the diagnosis of CSBD which already existed in ICD-11. Now the concept of porn addiction is on its death bed, and if DSM-6 will also reject it, porn addiction will be dead in the water. Then porn addiction will become the laughing stock of worldwide psychiatry (and even at this moment it isn't considerably better).

Hilton lost the scientific dispute, and Wikipedia never had much sympathy for its losing factions. tgeorgescu (talk) 11:10, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

The gist is that Hilton is a WP:FRINGE peddler, and, according to WP:GEVAL, Wikipedia cannot say otherwise. tgeorgescu (talk) 06:52, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

Brain damage
https://neurosciencenews.com/neuroscience-pornography-brain-15354/amp/ Jm33746 (talk) 22:39, 12 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) 23:16, 12 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Brain graphs show brains are damaged by porn Jm33746 (talk) 22:04, 18 April 2023 (UTC)
 * If you can convince the scientific community that porn does brain damage, consider yourself a winner of the Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine. tgeorgescu (talk) 18:54, 19 April 2023 (UTC)

Obsolete scientific theory RFC
Since both ICD-11 and DSM-5-TR have rejected the diagnosis, should porn addiction be characterized as an obsolete scientific theory? tgeorgescu (talk) 17:06, 28 March 2023 (UTC)


 * If you need a WP:RS: https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/women-who-stray/201808/science-stopped-believing-in-porn-addiction-you-should-too tgeorgescu (talk) 20:33, 28 March 2023 (UTC)


 * I think "fringe theory" would describe it better than "obsolete theory" given that the idea seems to still have significant track outside of scientific circles. Random person no 362478479 (talk) 21:38, 28 March 2023 (UTC)


 * No, ICD-11 and DSM-5-TR aren't the end-all be-all deciders of what is or isn't a valid theory.--Ortizesp (talk) 05:36, 30 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Would you object to the characterisation as "fringe theory"? It is weaker than "obsolete" in that it does not imply that the theory is wrong while still retaining that mainstream science seems to have turned its back on it. If you do object, what would be your proposal as to how to characterise the theory's current standing? Random person no 362478479 (talk) 12:48, 30 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Yup, technically you cannot show that porn addiction does not exist, you can only show that it exists (and that has not happened yet). "Broadband first started to replace dial-up in the early 2000s" . "At some point in 2004, for the first time ever, there were more people in the US who had access to broadband internet than dial-up, according to the Pew Research Center." . How long do we have to wait before calling porn addiction craps? tgeorgescu (talk) 14:06, 30 March 2023 (UTC)
 * I think you misunderstood me. Yes, the "theory" of "porn addiction" is clearly a crude case of religious hysteria masquerading as science for political purposes. I have two reasons for preferring "fringe" over "outdated". The first is that outside of scientific circles the theory still has significant track. Unfortunately that includes less reputable science journals. The second is that in my opinion "obsolete" implies that at some point it was a legitimate scientific theory (like e.g. the theory of Luminiferous aether). I don't think that is the case here. And while "fringe" does not imply that the theory is wrong it still implies it. If you don't think "fringe" fits, maybe "pseudo-scientific" is an alternative? BTW, I think the entire article needs some rewriting. As it is it still gives too much of an appearance that the theory has some validity. Random person no 362478479 (talk) 14:19, 30 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Well, it got traction in at least one WP:MEDRS-compliant source, but that was long before DSM-5-TR weighed it again and found it wanting. tgeorgescu (talk) 15:02, 30 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Putting aside whether it was a legitimate scientific theory at some point, what do you think of my suggestion of using either "fringe" (my personal preference) or "pseudo-scientific" instead of "obsolete"? Random person no 362478479 (talk) 01:42, 1 April 2023 (UTC)
 * I agree that it is a fringe theory. tgeorgescu (talk) 04:42, 1 April 2023 (UTC)
 * @Ortizesp do you object to the characterisation as a fringe theory? If you do, can you point to an at least somewhat recent (say three years or so) source that meets WP:RSMED which supports the theory? Random person no 362478479 (talk) 06:16, 1 April 2023 (UTC)
 * I'm fine with fringe theory. Ortizesp (talk) 06:21, 1 April 2023 (UTC)
 * For it to be an "obsolete theory", it needs to have previously been a mainstream, established theory; so I oppose that. "Fringe" is more complex, but I wouldn't use that word inline. The concept of pornography as an addictive disorder (i.e. as a medical term) is definitely WP:FRINGE and pseudoscientific; but the term "pornography addiction" seems mainly used in a colloquial sense to refer to an inability to control one's pornography use (or, loosely, to perceived negative effects). Random is right that the article needs a rewrite; it makes no sense to have an article about a non-existent diagnosis, which blurs the line between medical and colloquial uses. Personally, I'd propose a move to Compulsive use of pornography (many of our sources use that term, not "addiction"), and just reframe the article around that larger topic (though still adhering strictly to MEDRS, and still debunking the unsupported "addiction" claims). DFlhb (talk) 21:51, 11 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Support fringe - I was summoned by Yapperbot. I support the argument above to call pornography addiction "fringe", which suggests the usage of the term persists in pseudo-scientific circles, but the term has never achieved mainstream scientific clinical acceptance. I also support the idea of introducing the term "compulsive use of pornography" early on in the article to address the alternate unscientific colloquial contemporary usage of the term "sex addiction".  I'm not sold on renaming this, though. I think "pornography addiction" will be the more searched term.  STEM info  (talk) 22:43, 12 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Comment - I've read that it's considered rude to edit anyone's comments, but links are helpful. ICD-11 and DSM-5-TR.  STEM info  (talk) 22:45, 12 April 2023 (UTC)
 * I haven't looked at the sources, but "fringe and largely abandoned" or "fringe and largely discredited" seem like better ways to say what "obsolete" was trying to say. P.S. I read "obsolete scientific theory" in the question three times plus twice in the section title, and somehow five times in a row I read it as "obscene scientific theory". I kept reading and re-reading everything thinking WTF? LOLZ. That was bizarre. I guess "pornography" primed my brain to read "obs?e?e" as obscene, and it just stuck each time I reread it. Alsee (talk) 13:03, 19 April 2023 (UTC) Edited to add: Per the comments below, and looking over the article, the current article text seems better than the others being considered.Alsee (talk) 09:49, 21 April 2023 (UTC)
 * "Fringe and largely discredited/abandoned" seems far too strong given the source presented so far. We all agree that it's not a recognized diagnosis. The blog post linked by tgeorgescu at the beginning refers to a paper which conducts a meta-analysis (secondary source), but uses that meta-analysis to introduces a new model (which it is a primary source for, under MEDRS), and a single primary source clearly can't be used for such a huge change in wording.
 * I'm also concerned that the single paper we're discussing doesn't support any of our claims. Its abstract says the mental health community at large is divided, which contradicts "fringe and largely abandoned/discredited". Its body says: Compulsive or extreme use of pornography is well documented in various studies, and, despite the controversies in the feld on whether or not pornography addiction is a “real” disorder, it is abundantly clear that some individuals do experience dysregulation in their use of pornography. The paper is a secondary source when it comes to the academically dominant model (dysregulated porn use caused by Individual Differences (e.g., impulsivity, sensation-seeking, low self-control, emotional dysregulation, coping deficits, but a primary source for its second, proposed pathway (pornography problems due to moral incongruence). I'll note that the authors present this new pathway as a refinement of their previous "perceived addiction" concept (as opposed to "real" addiction), so they're a primary source on the "perceived addiction" concept too. Their meta-analysis does conclude that pornography use itself doesn't induce dependence (unlike drugs), which debunks some of the claims made by the YourBrainOnPorn people.
 * Overall, we're discussing extremely heavy wording without commensurate meticulousness and rigour (just one study, which it seems no one has read). I'd now oppose any changes, and support closing this RFC until a proper, rigorous survey of secondary WP:MEDRS is presented, before any new RFC is held on this. And I think my original idea was the right one: reframe this article in terms of problematic use (which is actually what the paper is about, not addiction), and have one addiction section to cover that debate. DFlhb (talk) 14:18, 19 April 2023 (UTC)
 * As I often said, I'm not opposed to a diagnosis of porn OCD or CPBD, but I don't think the word "addiction" will apply to it. tgeorgescu (talk) 14:22, 19 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Of course; my second quote wasn't meant to use the paper to argue against itself — DFlhb (talk) 14:41, 19 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Yup, and ASAM, often quoted as an authority in these matters, does not actually say much about porn addiction, see https://www.google.com/search?q=site%3Aasam.org+pornography&client=firefox-b-d tgeorgescu (talk) 16:50, 19 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Support Unscientific or Fringe. Right now "unscientific" is in the lead, and that seems clearer to me than either Fringe or Obsolete, but frankly I've never seen "unscientific" in a lead before. It seems to sidestep the usual debate about "pseudoscientific". Regardless "obsolete" is an odd word in this case.DolyaIskrina (talk) 16:42, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

CSBD
CSBD is not an addiction at all. It decidedly, explicitly rejects the model of addiction. tgeorgescu (talk) 16:32, 14 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Could you please provide a source for that? The sources cited in the lede that I checked made the argument that porn addiction doesn't have the same features as addiction to physically addictive psychoactive substances, such as alcohol. From a common sense point of view, denying that porn addiction is an addiction at all seems absurd, given that - as pointed out in the edsum - anything which evokes positive emotions can be addictive, and arguing that porn is the sole exception seems extremely arbitrary and reductionistic. Rhosnes (talk) 16:53, 14 July 2023 (UTC)
 * "Compulsion" and "addiction" are competing and mutually exclusive models. If you want to make a psychologist or psychiatrist angry, you should conflate compulsion with addiction.
 * And your word is WP:OR. That means you are writing in the article your own opinion, not the opinions of WP:RS. http://undsci.berkeley.edu/wp-content/uploads/2022/06/balance-1.gif tgeorgescu (talk)  17:44, 14 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Well, https://www.verywellmind.com/the-difference-between-an-addiction-and-a-compulsion-22240, is it? According to this website, the predominant distinguishing feature between an addiction and a compulsion is a feeling of pleasure, which I don't think I need to provide a source to convince you is a part of viewing porn. Anyway, no, what I'm saying isn't OR because I'm trying to interpret the sources. I haven't found anything in the sources that denies that CSBD is an addiction at all, only ruling that CSBD doesn't have the characteristics of physical addiction. I'm appealing to common sense to argue that the article's interpretation of the sources' claims is highly implausible, not that the sources themselves are invalid. Rhosnes (talk) 20:31, 14 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Provide evidence that the word appears in the WP:RS.
 * As Martin Heidegger argued, philosophy is the outright denial of common sense.
 * Mainstream science is essentially a quarrel with common sense. We, at Wikipedia, do not need common sense, we need the consensus of mainstream science. See WP:MEDRS for details. tgeorgescu (talk) 20:46, 14 July 2023 (UTC)
 * According to this website Wikipedia doesn't consider such websites to be reliable sources, for good reason. MrOllie (talk) 20:46, 14 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Why is it a quarrel with common sense? Common sense tells us that the Earth is flat and not moving.
 * Thousands and thousands of years of common sense have produced neither antibiotics, nor computers. Modern science did.
 * And neither the yeah-sayers, nor the nay-sayers argued that porn addiction would be a physical addiction. So that line is just silly.
 * Both proponents and opponents (including DSM-5 and DSM-5-TR) discussed whether sex addiction could be considered a behavioral addiction like the gambling disorder. Physical (i.e. substance) addiction simply wasn't on the table for sex addiction. tgeorgescu (talk) 11:04, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

Sexual assault
Porn increase sexual assault Jm33746 (talk) 22:11, 18 April 2023 (UTC)
 * How many times do you have to be told that Wikipedia bases content on published reliable sources, and not on unsourced assertions from random obsessives? AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:07, 18 April 2023 (UTC)
 * As Andy said, under Wikipedia policy we will not alter the article based on your claims, unless you cite Reliable Sources which sufficiently support those claims.
 * I will also state that your claim is false. Every bit of research I've seen on the subject shows that legalizing porn in a jurisdictions results in decreases sex crime and criminalizing porn increases sex crime in the jurisdiction. However at the moment haven't even looked at the article, and I'm not proposing any change to the article, so I don't need to cite those sources. I'm sure you can easily find those sources yourself, if you search for actual peer-reviewed scientific research on the subject. Try Google Scholar. Alsee (talk) 13:18, 19 April 2023 (UTC)
 * You will find now more US data at Talk:Pornography addiction/FAQ. tgeorgescu (talk) 14:13, 19 April 2023 (UTC)
 * "criminalizing porn increases sex crime in the jurisdiction" Captain obvious here. When legal means of relieving frustration do not exist, crime is the result. Repression is a surefire way to increase crime rates. Dimadick (talk) 05:53, 20 April 2023 (UTC)
 * 18Foubert, J. D., Brosi, M. W., & Bannon, R. S. (2011). Pornography viewing among fraternity men: Effects on bystander intervention, rape myth acceptance and behavioral intent to commit sexual assault. 18(4), 212-231. doi:10.1080/10720162.2011.625552
 * 19Foubert, J. D., & Bridges, A. J. (2017). What Is the Attraction? Pornography Use Motives in Relation to Bystander Intervention. Journal of Adolescent Research, 32(20), 213–243. https://doi.org/10.1177/0743558414547097
 * 20Foubert, J. D., Brosi, M. W., & Bannon, R. S. (2011). Pornography viewing among fraternity men: Effects on bystander intervention, rape myth acceptance and behavioral intent to commit sexual assault.18(4), 212-231. doi:10.1080/10720162.2011.625552
 * 21Foubert, J. D., & Bridges, A. J. (2017). What Is the Attraction? Pornography Use Motives in Relation to Bystander Intervention. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 32(20), 3071–3089. https://doi.org/10.1177/0886260515596538
 * 22Wright, P. J., & Tokunaga, R. S. (2016). Men's Objectifying Media Consumption, Objectification of Women, and Attitudes Supportive of Violence Against Women. Archives of sexual behavior, 45(4), 955–964. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10508-015-0644-8
 * 23Seabrook, R. C., Ward, L. M., & Giaccardi, S. (2019). Less than human? media use, objectification of women, and men’s acceptance of sexual aggression. Psychology of Violence, 9(5), 536-545. doi:10.1037/vio0000198
 * 24van Oosten, J., & Vandenbosch, L. (2020). Predicting the Willingness to Engage in Non-Consensual Forwarding of Sexts: The Role of Pornography and Instrumental Notions of Sex. Archives of sexual behavior, 49(4), 1121–1132. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10508-019-01580-2
 * 25Wright, P. J., Tokunaga, R. S., & Kraus, A. (2016). A meta-analysis of pornography consumption and actual acts of sexual aggression in general population studies. Journal of Communication, 66(1), 183-205. doi:https://doi.org/10.1111/jcom.12201
 * 26Rostad, W. L., Gittins-Stone, D., Huntington, C., Rizzo, C. J., Pearlman, D., & Orchowski, L. (2019). The association between exposure to violent pornography and teen dating violence in grade 10 high school students. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 48(7), 2137-2147. doi:10.1007/s10508-019-1435-4 24.53.78.194 (talk) 21:18, 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.
 * Also, as shown by the data presented at Talk:Pornography addiction/FAQ, your studies are flat-out contradicted by reality.
 * Rothman stated in 2021: "In other words, five studies found that the sexual violence perpetrators had seen less pornography than other criminals." She added "Should these few “bad apples” spoil the pleasure of the potentially much larger subset of people who enjoy violent-looking pornography with no ill effects?" tgeorgescu (talk) 04:29, 6 September 2023 (UTC)

Indicted as a public health crisis
This is, by some US politicians, never by the American Psychiatric Association. US psychiatrists did not jump the bandwagon. tgeorgescu (talk) 07:56, 23 August 2022 (UTC)


 * Did you see the Texas warning labels on pornography Jm33746 (talk) 00:57, 17 June 2023 (UTC)


 * Yup, sheer pseudoscience. tgeorgescu (talk) 02:51, 22 June 2023 (UTC)
 * No Tgeorgescu, an indication of social repression and illiberal policies. They do not even pretend to be using scientific methods. Dimadick (talk) 08:01, 22 June 2023 (UTC)
 * The law has been halted till litigation ends: tgeorgescu (talk)  17:14, 1 September 2023 (UTC)
 * "If that seems contradictory, the reality is that what the 5th Circuit is saying, in a truly partisan way, is that when Republicans compel speech, that’s fine. It’s not only fine, but the court doesn’t even need to explain why it passes constitutional muster. When Democrats highlight content that could lead to harm for websites to look at and decide for themselves if they want to host it, that is the worst censorship scandal in the history of America, and the government should be barred from speaking to the companies at all."
 * https://www.techdirt.com/2023/09/20/last-week-5th-circuit-said-govt-cant-pressure-websites-this-week-it-says-govt-mandated-health-messages-are-perfectly-fine/ tgeorgescu (talk) 02:59, 30 September 2023 (UTC)

COI
is WP:COI. tgeorgescu (talk) 07:18, 3 October 2023 (UTC)