Talk:Pornography addiction/Archive 1

message: 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)
thread_title: Unnamed series of studies

message: [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)
thread_title: Medlina links (mostly anti-porn) 

message: 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)
thread_title:  From a journalist... 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Translations 

message: 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)
thread_title: Spam filter

message: 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)
thread_title: Well, here's a try

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Semantic problem, redux 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  I see the Wiki Nazis are hard at work 

message: 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)
thread_title: More Citation Needed of Skepticism

message: 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)
thread_title: No research done claim

message: 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)
thread_title:  Merge -- I think it should be 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Dobson is no expert on anything except fundamentalist opportunism 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title: Merge [[Sexual addiction]] with [[Pornography addiction]]?

message: 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)
thread_title:  yes that's a thought... 

message: (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)
replies: text: 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. — coelacan — 04:23, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: the burden of peer review

message: 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. — coelacan — 17:13, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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. — coelacan — 22:27, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 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. — coelacan — 23:39, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Done, and a diff: the difference between this page and the archive is only what remains here. — coelacan — 23:58, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

text: 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)
thread_title:  way too many external links 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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. — coelacan — 21:50, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Added Some Science Links, Commentia on NPOV 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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. — coelacan — 15:00, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

text: 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)
thread_title: definition

message: 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)
thread_title:  word for word reverts?? 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Viability of diagnosis 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Why the Ted Bundy anecdote? 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Cut a line to talk page for discussion. 

message: Formal criteria have been suggested by psychologists like Richard Irons, M. D. and Jennifer P. Schneider along lines strictly analogous to the DSM criteria for alcohol and other substance addictions.See http://www.jenniferschneider.com/articles/diagnos.html this article] (online copy of Richard Irons, M. D. and Jennifer P. Schneider, M.D., Ph. D "Differential Diagnosis of Addictive Sexual Disorders Using the DSM-IV." In Sexual Addiction & Compulsivity 1996, Volume 3, pp 7-21, 1996)
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)
thread_title:  Schneider - content and ref cut to here 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Large copyvio cut 

message: 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)
thread_title:  christianet.com as a [[wp:RS]] 

message: 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)
thread_title:  LDS site being used as an RS on pornography addiction 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Dead link, promo link, new promo link 

message: 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)
thread_title:  made edit in proposed stages of pornography addiction 

message: The neutrality of this article is non existent, and it reads more like a damning christian religious self help flyer. Robvanvee 10:48, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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. Robvanvee 23:01, 11 May 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I'll go through the contested material tomorrow and thereafter remove the tags.Robvanvee 23:04, 11 May 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Zero NPOV in this article 

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

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

text: 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)

text: 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)

text: 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)

text: 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)

text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: Quoted from http://www.apa.org/monitor/2014/04/pornography.aspx Tgeorgescu (talk) 18:09, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  False claims by Chrislyte 

message: 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)
thread_title:  New research invalidates [http://www.researchgate.net/publication/258565076_The_Emperor_Has_No_Clothes_A_review_of_the_Pornography_Addiction_model Ley et al claims] about porn use causing ED  

message: 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)
thread_title:  Ley et al misrepresent data 

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

text: 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)

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

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

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

text: Provide reliable sources which explicitly state this. Tgeorgescu (talk) 21:14, 1 August 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: There are two Prause sources, one is a review, the other is a primary source. Tgeorgescu (talk) 16:44, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm referring to the one that Keithbob cited. Flyer22 (talk) 16:49, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Questionable sources (MEDRS template) 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 12:24, 28 October 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Blimpish Prudery of this article - summary 

message: 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)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text:  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. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 18:57, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

text: 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)
thread_title:  Erotica damaging people 

message: According to , the blog seems legit (belonging to mainstream scientists). Yup, it redirects there. Tgeorgescu (talk) 19:49, 14 April 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: My mistake! I mistook it for the similarly named blog that their domain redirect was spoofing. - MrOllie (talk) 19:58, 14 April 2019 (UTC)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Blog 

message: A Critique on “The Great Porn Experiment”
Sex Supplement: UBC researcher doubts "Great Porn Experiment" hypothesis
Op-ed by Neuroscientists stating “Fight the New Drug” Misrepresents Science
What do you think of the TEDx talk "The Great porn Experiment"?
— Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.159.33.167 (talk) 15:28, 30 March 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  The Great Porn Experiment (critique) 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Addiction or something else? 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Recent edits 

message: 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.  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)
thread_title:  Scientific fraud, retractions 

message: About : 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,  Tgeorgescu (talk) 11:47, 15 March 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Gary Wilson 

message: Searching at PubMed for meta-analyses and reviews for the keyword , 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)
thread_title:  Slow news 

message: 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)
thread_title:  ASAM 

message: 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#DSM-5-TR. tgeorgescu (talk)  01:12, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  DSM-5-TR 

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

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

message: 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)
thread_title:  Controversial 

message: 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)
replies: text: "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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  2021 review 

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

message: 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)
thread_title:  Mainstream medical journals 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Obsolete scientific theory RFC 

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