Skip to main content

Talk:Pornography addiction

Talk:Pornography addiction

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

? edit Frequently asked questions (FAQ)
The main points of this FAQ (Talk:Pornography addiction#FAQ) can be summarized as:

More detail is given on this point, below.

Information.svg To view the response to a question, click the [show] link to the right of the question.

Q1: Why don't you state pornography addiction as fact?
A1: Our policies on Wikipedia, in particular WP:WEIGHT and WP:FRINGE, require us to provide coverage to views based on their prominence within reliable sources, and we must reflect the opinion of the scientific community as accurately as possible. For example, if the APA will include pornography addiction in the DSM, then Wikipedia will rubber-stamp its decision. Otherwise, Wikipedia isn't here to give a "fair and balanced" treatment to your pet ideas. In this respect, Wikipedia is merely a mirror which reflects medical orthodoxy. There is no official document from WHO, AMA, APA, Cochrane or APA which would imply that sex/porn/masturbation addiction would be a valid diagnosis.
Further information: WP:MEDRS
Past discussions
References


Recent edits[edit]

@Anastasia.Shylnov: 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#The bald claim that NO causal harm is known from masturbation is false. This is an important error on a "top importance" page on sexuality. — 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)
@Tgeorgescu: 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[edit]

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 Yamla. 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)

Slow news[edit]

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 Kang, Xiaoxi; Handayani, Dini Oktarina Dwi; Chong, Pei Pei; Acharya, U. Rajendra (2020). "Profiling of pornography addiction among children using EEG signals: A systematic literature review". Computers in biology and medicine. Elsevier BV. 125: 103970. doi:10.1016/j.compbiomed.2020.103970. ISSN 0010-4825. PMID 32892114., 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, 'Sex addiction' isn't an actual disorder, but white men often get excused by using it, experts say

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

Gary Wilson[edit]

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)

Mainstream medical journals[edit]

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)

the concept of addiction has been deprecated since DSM-IV, they cannot turn the clock back;

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.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.adolescence.2017.04.006 admits there are no experimental data

There may not be experimental data but there is observational data, ergo, tentative evidence, not just opinions.

You might ask why Hilton wrote that article.

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.

I never said that Wikipedia should strive to represent the views of editors. Rather what I said is that since Wikipedia strives to represent views in proportion to the coverage they receive in reliable secondary sources, editors who let their views bleedthrough into their editing are a bigger problem when their views are outside of the mainstream then when their views are within the mainstream. For example if an editor is a Nazi who believes whites are the superior race, when they try to force this view into our articles, this is a significant problem. By comparison, if an editor believes that there is no such thing as a superior race, it's far less of a problem when their editing to articles is biased by this particular view. It's not because there are few Nazis on Wikipedia, and most editors are not Nazis. It's because sources overwhelming reject Nazi idealogy. The fact that our editors also overwhelming do so is great, but was never part of my point. The rest of your commment supports this, so I'm not even sure why you're challenging me. Nil Einne (talk) 05:31, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

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.

— 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—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)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Pornography_addiction&oldid=1028576103"

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Obol (coin)

Image
Obol (coin) From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Jump to navigation Jump to search Unit of Ancient Greek Coinage For the modern Greek currency, see the Ionian obol ; for the British currency, see the halfpenny ; for the brachiopod genus, see Obolidae . Not to be confused with Obelus . Obols through history Six rod-shaped obols discovered at the Heraion of Argos (above) . Six obols forming one drachma . Silver obol of Athens, dated 515–510 BC. Obv. Gorgoneion Rev. Incuse square. Charon's obol . 5th–1st century BC. LUCANIA, Metapontion. c.  425 –350 BC. Æ 21 mm. An obol of the Greco-Bactrian king Demetrius , 12  mm in diameter. A 19th-century obol from the British-occupied Ionian Islands . The obol ( Greek : ὀβολός , obolos , also ὀβελός ( obelós ), ὀβελλός ( obellós ), ὀδελός ( odelós ). lit.  "nail, metal spit"; [1] Latin : obolus ) was a form of ancient Greek currency and weight. Cont
Read more

Jacques Rancière

Image
Jacques Rancière From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia   (Redirected from Jacques Ranciere ) Jump to navigation Jump to search French philosopher Jacques Rancière Born ( 1940-06-10 ) 10 June 1940 (age 81) Algiers , French Algeria (present-day Algiers, Algeria ) Nationality French Alma mater École Normale Supérieure Era 20th- / 21st-century philosophy Region Western philosophy School Continental philosophy Structural Marxism Institutions University of Paris VIII Main interests Political philosophy , aesthetics , philosophy of history , philosophy of education , cinema Notable ideas Theories of democracy, disagreement, the Visual, [1] "part of no part" [2] Influences Plato , Aristotle , Marx , Althusser , Foucault , Lacan , Lyotard , Badiou , Arendt , Lefort Influenced Laclau , Žižek , Critchley , Bernard Aspe , Kristin Ross , Todd May , Levi Bryant , Jodi Dean , Gabriel Rockhill Jacques Ra
Read more

2000–01 California electricity crisis

Image
2000–01 California electricity crisis From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia   (Redirected from California Energy crisis ) Jump to navigation Jump to search Chronology [1] [2] [3] 1996 California begins to modify controls on its energy market and takes measures ostensibly to increase competition. September 23, 1996 Pete Wilson signs Electric Utility Industry Restructuring Act (Assembly Bill 1890) and it becomes law. [4] April 1998 Spot market for energy begins operation. May 2000 Significant rise in energy prices. June 14, 2000 Blackouts affect 97,000 customers in San Francisco Bay area during a heat wave . August 2000 San Diego Gas & Electric Company files a complaint alleging manipulation of the markets. January 17–18, 2001 Blackouts affect several hundred thousand customers. January 17, 2001 Governor Davis declares a state of emerge
Read more