Talk:Effects of pornography

Additional material to be included

This article will be expanded to cover studies which have found that, in the United States, states which have higher rates of sexual assaults also have higher readership of pornographic magazines, and that rapists view pornographic material more frequently than the general public. Other important areas of expansion include findings that the legalization of pornography in some Scandinavian countries was not accompanied by an increase in the rate of sexual assaults, and that controlled studies predating Zillmann, Dolf: "Effects of Prolonged Consumption of Pornography", [1] have found that limited exposure to pornography over much shorter periods of time than examined in the Zillmann study was not correlated with variables suggesting an increased willingness to engage in sexual assaults or other adverse effects. Readers may evaluate the merits of the methodologies employed by various studies, and draw their own conclusions. John254 00:33, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

It is statistically critical to ALWAYS draw attention to the implicit weakness in correlation studies. When A is correlated with (happens with) B, then did A cause B or did B cause A? See Bayes' theorem. And it could be NEITHER! C might cause both A and B. I hate these correlation studies. Suddenly everybody gets their undies in a bundle and says "THERE NOW! That PROVES it." In fact, it may prove just the opposite.

So, in the above cases. did higher rates of sexual assaults cause (or predated) higher readership or did higher readership cause higher sexual assaults? Many examples throughout statistics can be given (cellphones, lie detectors, feminism, biostatistics, ad infinitum) where people thought one and discovered later that it was the other. THIS HAPPENS IN EVERY POLITICALLY CONTENTIOUS TOPIC THROUGHOUT WIKIPEDIA. I really think there should be a STANDARDIZED flag of some sort that says correlation studies tell us NOTHING. Prof. Judea Pearl names some excellent examples. I once asked my grad advisor if I could include some of his examples in my thesis. He said, "You wouldn't want to publish THAT! People wouldn't want to hire you!" I decided to get drunk.

Conclusion? These statistical examples don't help at all. They just confuse the issue. But if the research says one CAUSED the other (given our presuppositions)....then you've got something.

Sigh....we as a world society REALLY need to learn this.

Please, OH please...to the Wikipedia leadership...make this notice/disclaimer a standard no matter WHAT it is.

I think I'm gonna put this rant (apologies) several other places in Wikipedia. It could improve quality everywhere. --StudiousReader (talk) 10:59, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Yes, and not to mention the fact that simple two-way correlational studies miss significant factors (basically, the Cs that might be causal to A and B) that might be picked up in a multivariate correlational study.

I want to also point out that this research was carried out by Dolf Zillmann, who's research on pornography is very controversial, and tainted by bias toward strong socially conservatism that's built into the questionnaires he uses in his surveys. (Basically, Zillmann's ideas about "calousness toward women" don't mean what most liberals would think that means – if you believe in gay rights or that sex outside of marriage is OK, those are indicators of "callousness toward women" according to Zillmann.) If Zillmann's research is going to be quoted in this article, I think some information contextualizing Zillmann is called for. Iamcuriousblue (talk) 17:43, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Changes to Introduction Paragraph

I have modified the introduction paragraph to better reflect the content of the page. The previous version, although stating that the current research was inconclusive, implied that more research indicated correlation between availability of pornography and sex crime. This is not true and is inconsistent with the body of the page which describes studies which together indicate the opposite correlation.

I have left the assertion that the current state of research is inconclusive, although to back this up, we really need to describe some research here which does indicate a positive correlation between crime and availability.

Also, the page is called Public Health Effects of Pornography but everything on the page so far is related almost exclusively to sex crimes. There is a brief reference to decreased sexual response, but I feel the article needs a lot more to fairly cover the topic. Other subjects that might be considered for inclusion here:

• pornography as an addiction
• the effects of pornography on couples' sexual health
• pornography's role in mitigating the health risks of sexual abstinence for single males

Epidemiology

Are the first few sentences relevant to this article? it seems that validity should appear in an article on epidemiology, not here. 24.184.133.223 (talk) 15:57, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Title

In think the article title, "Studies on effects of Pornography" will be more generic and will cover more topics. Bluptr (talk) 12:44, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Material recently added to this article

Much of the content added by Bluptr is attributed to sources which do not meet the standards for reliability described in Wikipedia:Verifiability#Reliable_sources since they are not peer reviewed and are published by the anti-pornography advocacy website obscenitycrimes.org, which seems to have something of an axe to grind :) Therefore, I am removing the problematic material. Kristen Eriksen (talk) 22:44, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Pages which aren't peer reviewed and are published on the websites of other advocacy organizations, such as this one [2], are likewise not reliable sources per Wikipedia:Verifiability#Reliable_sources. Even portions of mainstream newspaper articles can turn into unreliable sources if they simply restate material which isn't peer reviewed, attributing it to its original authors without any assertion of validity. Kristen Eriksen (talk) 23:07, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

I agree, and also the same with more recent edits. People's opinions do not count as scientific research - if that's allowed, then equally we ought to be able to cite opinions of people who claim the opposite. Also, much of the material added makes a Post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy, focusing on people known to be violent criminals, and noting that they often happen to use porn. This does not mean that using porn leads to violent crime (anymore than saying all rapists enjoy sex, therefore sex leads to rape; or all criminals breath oxygen, therefore breathing oxygen leads to crime....) Mdwh (talk) 15:27, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Lets analyze few of the edits

• How can you explain the removal of material from published from BBC and highly notable magazine like Christianity Today?[3] Both are reliable sources.

• This Edit, adds "however these focus on whether violent criminals viewed pornography, rather than whether viewing pornography leads to violent crime." which is a original research. I want the above statement from a reliable source.

• another edit, which removes material from a reliable source, can somebody prove that the book Journey Into Darkness is unreliable?

• The summary of this edit , "what's wrong with fueling fantasies of consensual BDSM? misleading and pov; remove wikilink for violent porn - no evidence that the material he viewed is related to the UK law" is itself a POV. Read carefully , "What's wrong" :) And these are research figures from a highly notable person . And how can violent porn be equated with UK law and unwikified?

• This Edit removes material from a prostitution research center, can someone prove that the research center is unreliable? And note that this organization is supported by government and the researcher is Melissa Farlay, a highly notable researcher, this cannot be removed.

• This edit is not valid, as per WP:LEAD, a lead is very necessary which provides insight into into the article.

• This edit gives more weightage to Berl Kutchinsky... needless to say, this section is missing what his opponents say, and draws from a single source.

• This edit removes the magazines, while it retains the other stuff... The person is a highly notable researcher.

• This edit is plain vandalism, a well referenced material from an international journal was removed. "Snip stats" is not a correct summary, even the "graphs" are stats drawn from a single source... applying the same analogy, even the graphs can be remove.

The edits which removed BBC, research organizations supported from governments, International Journals are not valid, nor is the removal of the lead. I will add them later, and needless to say, the same can be confirmed at the noticeboard. This article gives undue weightage to Kutchinsky... And applying the same analogy of the edit summaries of the ones I have listed above, Kutchinsky can easily be removed., but he is a reliable source and has a place in the article.

There is no way a research, survey can be removed, see Wikipedia:NPOV#Let_the_facts_speak_for_themselves which particularly addresses it...Let the facts speak for themselves...

Bluptr (talk) 17:23, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

The reliability of the BBC and Christian Today is in the sense that "These people had these experiences". That is not in dispute. However, the Wikipedia text claimed that the authors were "researchers" who "have reported direct correlation between usage of pornography and visiting prostitutes". No they have not, as far as I can see? To generalise from a few anecdotal cases to a direct correlation is original research.

I think the anecdotes can be removed., agree with you, I will read these links in detail and see if it really makes sense. Bluptr (talk) 16:13, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

"I want the above statement from a reliable source." - the sources are those given yourself, which look at pornography usage and crime (e.g., "pornography has influenced several sex-related crime"). If you dispute the reliability of the sources, then we should remove them. It is also original research to make assumptions of a "link". If this is in dispute, then I suggest we remove the statement altogether and do not say anything one way or the other.

The "link" has been said by the FBI agents, referenced through out the section

"[opinion on BDSM] is itself a POV." - no, the burden is upon the one who wants to add material to the article, i.e., you. My point isn't that Journey Into Darkness is unreliable, but it is off-topic (and POV) to place tendencies towards BDSM under "Violent crime"! I have no problem with moving it into a neutral section (although "people who use BDSM porn are more likely to be into BDSM" seems a statement of the bleeding obvious to me, and could be said of any kind of material...)

If a reliable FBI researcher argues that sadomachism and BDSM leads to violence, this definitely has a place here. And I am sorry for the personal attack, it was in the heat of moment, sorry for that. This is not correct on my part. Bluptr (talk) 16:13, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

"And how can violent porn be equated with UK law and unwikified?" - read the article its linked to. It's about a UK law. Wikipedia is not a dictionary, so we don't wikilink every word that might have an article, we wikilink articles that are relevant to the word in context.

Agree with this one. Bluptr (talk) 16:13, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Re [4], read my edit summary - I am not disputing the reliability, I am saying this is off-topic for effects of porn. I don't mind if you want to put it in an article on prostitution. (If sex slaves were forced to work at knifepoint, this clearly would not be an "effect of knives", or placed in a knife article - the appropriate place would obviously be an article on sex slavery.)

will check this, if the article been, "Studies on Pornography", this section makes sense.

Re: the lead, where is Wikipedia policy that states individual opinions should be in the lead as if they are representative of the article?

Yes, I have removed individual opinions.

I find it curious that you criticise "undue weight", when your edits have placed vast amounts of undue weight in the opposite direction... I also did not remove or add material - I simply moved it. Do you think that anecdotal experiences should be before scientific studies?

Please do not make accusations of vandalism - my reason for [5] is given in the summary. Again, there is no evidence that this is an effect of pornography.

I feel that this is not off-topic, see the effect part, "most frequent users of pornography were also the most frequent users of women in prostitution."

I agree with "Let the facts speak for themselves" - I am not disputing the facts, the problem is that facts (such as individual experiences) are being represented as scientific research (this article is supposed to be about "studies") and generalised claims (e.g., claims of a direct correlation, and causative links). Nor should we have a lead which makes conclusions about effects from porn from a handful of people. Remember that this article is not "correlation with porn and other things", it is "effects of porn", thus things which are caused by porn. Correlation does not imply causation, so including correlations in an article about effects is POV.

I will say that, "Studies on Pornography" is more apt, why cover only "effects"?

The alternative is that we dig out opinions from anyone who disputes these links (for which there must be plenty, especially if anecdotal experiences are allowed), and present them too.

Another possibility is that we rename this article from "effects" of pornography, to something that is less strong a word? Similarly drop the "Studies" - how about Opinions on pornography or Criticism of pornography? In these articles, it would be more appropriate to include the criticisms and opinions of anyone notable, without worrying that this is being presented by Wikipedia as a study that shows an actual effect of pornography.

Fine, "Studies on pornography" or even "Opinions on pornography", no probs.

I do not have time right now, so I have tagged this article until these problems can be resolved. What do other editors think? Mdwh (talk) 19:25, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Yes I agree with what you say related to the lead part, and I have rewritten it with a more neutral word usage, from WP:WTA, for other things I will look into them and comment/make changes when I get time., Bluptr (talk) 15:58, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Reliable sources

Per Wikipedia:Verifiability#Reliable_sources,

In general, the most reliable sources are peer-reviewed journals and books published in university presses; university-level textbooks; magazines, journals, and books published by respected publishing houses; and mainstream newspapers... Academic and peer-reviewed publications are highly valued and usually the most reliable sources in areas where they are available, such as history, medicine and science.

It is abundantly clear that much of Bluptr's content comes nowhere close to meeting the standards of source reliability articulated in our verifiability policy. An inordinately large portion of said content is referenced directly to obscenitycrimes.org, a non-peer-reviewed, partisan website, which is a reliable source only for the views of anti-pornography activists, and should not be cited for evidence of legitimate scientific research. All material that holds itself out as scientific research and is supported solely by references to obscenitycrimes.org should be excised from the article. A more difficult question is presented by quotations of medical professionals or law enforcement agents in mainstream newspapers. While such newspapers are generally reliable sources, such reliability extends only to claims which the newspaper has itself endorsed. Thus, when a newspaper reports that a professional has claimed that pornography produces certain health effects, we may not transform their representations of third-party claims into material on which the newspapers themselves have placed their imprimatur. Consequently, newspaper reporting of professionals' claims with no endorsement thereof should not be included in this article for the purpose of representing it as legitimate scientific research, since the reporting does not establish that the claims themselves have ever been endorsed by any peer-reviewed reliable source. Finally, theological publications, such as Christianity Today, are reliable sources only for religion, not scientific research. John254 18:53, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

I agree with John254: we aren't trying to turn this article into an abridged mirror of obscenitycrimes.org :) As bad as it is to use content from that site in which academics provide alleged "research" which hasn't been validated by the peer-review standards of academia, it's even worse to use their quotations of FBI agents and other LEOs based on their subjective personal experiences, with no pretensions to research at all. I might as well write an essay about the benefits I've received through working in porn, how I've supported myself through college with just a few hours of work each week, the intense exhibitionistic pleasure that I feel from knowing that there are tens of thousands of people watching me having sex on video, then have it published on the pro-porn Free Speech Coalition's website, and include it in the article as an example of the economic and psychological health benefits that young women derive from working in porn :) Well, my experience might be atypical, and if the article is going to describe the effects of porn on young female actresses, it needs to be based on research conducted in a systematic and statistically controlled manner, and validated through academic peer review. Otherwise, the article will decompose into a megabytes-long compilation of message board postings :( Kristen Eriksen (talk) 18:39, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

The article also still seems like it's giving lots of undue weight to the anti-porn position. And we really need to do something about an introductory paragraph filled with linguistic aberrations such as "The Epidemiological studies and Controlled studies have provided inconculsive insights into the problem of linking pornography with Sex Crimes." :) Kristen Eriksen (talk) 18:48, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I agree with John254, regarding removal of material from obscenitycrimes.org ( and thanks for pointing out ). Yes I must add material from reliable publishing houses and journals... Bluptr (talk) 05:28, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

You know, when asking for input on WP:RS/N [6], it's helpful to mention the article to which you wish to add the sources and provide a link to the talk page discussion. For determining source reliability, context is important :) Kristen Eriksen (talk) 19:54, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

To briefly address Bluptr's comments at WP:RS/N, the sources he proposes to include in the article are inappropriate as they do not reflect research on the effects of pornography which has been validated through academic peer review. Yes, as Bluptr's sources are a major newspaper and books by major non-academic publishers, they are reliable sources for the purpose of stating that "these academics and LEOs made these claims", but for an article entitled "Studies on effects of Pornography", we can and should require more, since Wikipedia:Verifiability#Reliable_sources states that

Academic and peer-reviewed publications are highly valued and usually the most reliable sources in areas where they are available, such as history, medicine and science.

Material that isn't legitimate research validated through academic peer review should not be dignified through characterization as "studies" :) Kristen Eriksen (talk) 20:38, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Let's be clear: in academia, peer review (when conducted under the auspices of a respected publisher) is the touchstone of research legitimacy. From our own article on peer review:

This process encourages authors to meet the accepted standards of their discipline and prevents the dissemination of irrelevant findings, unwarranted claims, unacceptable interpretations, and personal views. Publications that have not undergone peer review are likely to be regarded with suspicion by scholars and professionals.

Now, it's no surprise that purveyors of bogus "research" would do anything other than submit their work for legitimate academic peer review, that they would rather provide it to a newspaper reporter or non-academic publisher totally unqualified to evaluate it. We, however, should refrain from republishing such deficient material. Kristen Eriksen (talk) 20:57, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes, views of a single FBI agent, cannot be a "study", and we need information from well researched psychiatry journals. Bluptr (talk) 10:21, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Important studies left out/Sketchy sections

First, there are two very important meta-analyses of pornography effects studies that are left out of this article, and I think have the point of calling the overall factual accuracy into question:

• Malamuth NM, Addison T, Koss M. (2000). Pornography and sexual aggression: are there reliable effects and can we understand them? Annual Review of Sex Research, 11:26–91. PMID 11351835

• Fisher WA, Grenier G. (1994). Violent pornography, antiwoman thoughts, and antiwoman acts: In search of reliable effects. Journal of Sex Research, 31:23–38. (abstract)

Basically, these are the largest scale reviews of pornography effects studies to date. Fisher & Grenier conclude there is no reliable behavioral correlation established. Malamuth et al conclude that there is a valid effect, but that its largely restricted to violent pornography in the most violent subset of men. Leaving out this later meta-analysis also has the effect of presenting Malamuth's views entirely based on his studies during the 1980s rather than the more modest claims he made as his research progressed.

Also, there are two very problematic sections at the end of the article. "Physical and psychological effects" – the first study, as I remember it, was more about explicit lyrics rather than pornography per se, and seems to be rather partisan take on the issue. Insofar as this study is even relevant to this article, it needs to be looked at in the context of similar studies (if they've been carried out) on the same topic. My suspicion is that this is a cherry-picked finding that may not reflect a larger body of research. The second piece of research dates back to the 1960s, and hence is date – has this finding been supported by later research? And the use of the term "perversion" is very loaded and POV.

The second section, "Prostitution" is largely based on one study by Melissa Farley, who's not exactly an unbiased source on the topic and who's methodology has been called into question. Also, use of the term "pornography" is decontextualized here – Farley defines the private photographing or taping of sex acts with prostitutes as "pornography". The vast majority of this material does not make its way onto the commercial pornography market, hence, the implication that porn performers are a significantly overlapping population with prostitutes (especially the highly marginalized prostitutes that are the subject of Farley's research) is inaccurate. Iamcuriousblue (talk) 06:25, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

"Lab experiments" in "Controlled studies" section

There was a lot of really odd wording about "lab experiments" in the section about Controlled Studies. It seemed disingenuous; it conjured images of people watching porn under supervision at some lab or classroom location and then taking a survey, or something of that sort. I got that impression especially from one of the quotes from one of the sources, where a lot of stuff was removed by an ellipsis. But from what I can tell, the actual complaint isn't the setting but not having choice of exposure duration, type, etc. From how the experiments were presented to me (in a psychology of entertainment media class), they would have at least allowed them to take the videos home to watch in whatever place they'd want; nothing as outlandish as what was implied. I've changed it to try to remove the focus on "settings", and more on the main idea of the argument of experimental imposition not matching effect due to selection. —AySz88\^-^ 01:52, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Source "Pornography, Public Acceptance and Sex Related Crime: A Review"

hawaii.edu <quote>Abstract:

A vocal segment of the population has serious concerns about the effect of pornography in society and challenges its public use and acceptance. This manuscript reviews the major issues associated with the availability of sexually explicit material. It has been found everywhere scientifically investigated that as pornography has increased in availability, sex crimes have either decreased or not increased. It is further been found that sexual erotica has not only wide spread personal acceptance and use but general tolerance for its availability to adults. This attitude is seen by both men and women and not only in urban communities but also in reputed conservative ones as well. Further this finding holds nationally in the United States and in widely different countries around the world. Indeed, no country where this matter has been scientifically studied has yet been found to think pornography ought be restricted from adults. The only consistent finding is that adults prefer to have the material restricted from children’s production or use.</quote> —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.152.104.229 (talk) 18:49, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

human evolution and the effects of pornography on the world wide web.

It is apparent that we humans are subject to the dictates of our nature, that is somewhat different to all other forms of nature. We have evolved huge teeth namely the H BOMB and GUIDED WEAPONS, also large and most effictive hearing and sight - RADAR and MICRO TECHNOLOGY. We hve evolved these external to ourselfs . never the less we have evolved them. Now we are in danger of moveing into an even more worring evolution through the use of the internet. Mans inate and on the whole beneficial interest in sex is been perverted by the most intrusive pornography entering the subconscious and thus warping our evolution. It is interesting to note that much of the pornography on the internet is initialy free. Man above all creatures is most suseptable to conditioning, 80.6.6.117 (talk) 14:56, 1 April 2011 (UTC) .

Article cleanup and broadening scope

I expanded the lead of this article, per WP:LEAD, because "effects of pornography" is about more than pornography's effects on crime. Like another poster, in the #Changes to Introduction Paragraph section, stated above, it's odd that this article focuses primarily on crime. Thus, I added more to the article from a preexisting source and from another source going over other effects. A lot more should be added, though. This article should likely be divided into sections about the most prominent effects of pornography. I also reverted two text removals by an IP. My edits concerning all of this are here, here, and tweaks such as this. I don't believe that studies should be removed just because editors question the author's POV or expertise. All researchers have a POV about the topic they are researching. If the studies have been challenged by other researchers, proven inaccurate or scientifically discredited, then those sources should be produced alongside the discredited studies. 107.22.97.105 (talk) 23:18, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

The abstract is not very good

 Research concerning the effects of pornography are broad.

If they wheren't this would be original research.

 They include desensitization,

certification needed

 sexual exploitation,

certification needed/What is exploitation? Rape, forced marriage, prostitution? Should be split into these categories.

 dehumanization,

this word is unscientific, disgusting and offensive.

 sexual dysfunction,

certification needed/What kind of dysfunction? Male or female?

 the inability to maintain healthy sexual relationships,

certification needed/"healthy relationships" is highly unscientific.

 and encouragement of human trafficking

certification needed

 and pedophilic acts[citation needed].

certification needed/What exacly are pedophilic acts? Crimes?

 Pornography's effects on crime have been inconclusive.

Not really. The vast majority of the scientific community sees no negative link between pornography and crimes.

 Some studies support the contention that the viewing of pornographic material may increase rates of sexual crimes, while others have shown no effects, or a decrease in the rates of such crimes.

"Some" should be quantified and qualified if possible. Any thoughts? --84.132.80.170 (talk) 23:11, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

I have reverted your alteration of the intro, per WP:LEAD. This article is not just about pornography's effect on crime. Nor should it be. Various studies suggest that viewing pornography has other social effects, some of which are mentioned in this article. That's also why no citation tags are needed in the intro, because these things are already referenced below. As for the vast majority of the scientific community seeing no negative link between pornography and crimes, I have to disagree there. So what, there are positive links but no negative links...according to the vast majority of researchers? None at all? Nuh-uh. Unless there is a specific source showing and/or saying that, we should not say it.

I have to ask you, and I'll also ask it to you at what I'm sure is your registered account: Do you have some sort of WP:Conflict of interest with regard to the media's effect on society? I ask that because I have seen you (with your using different IP addresses) on several Wikipedia articles downplaying or removing information about negative media effects. Why do you believe that the media barely affects society negatively, contrary to the abundance of evidence that it can and does more than just a little, as much as it does positively? 122.72.0.113 (talk) 18:27, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Oh, and I changed "healthy sexual relationships" to "long-lasting sexual relationships" in the intro, although I don't see what is unscientific about it since researchers proclaim what are healthy and unhealthy relationships all the time (platonic or sexual) and the source in the Controlled section is speaking of both (unhealthy and not long-lasting because of it).

And with regard to specifying "pedophilic acts," the Pedophilia article, which is pipelinked under "pedophilic," clarifies what it means...showing that one doesn't even technically have to be a pedophile to commit a pedophilic act. 122.72.0.113 (talk) 18:49, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Well, since you PMed me on this, no you got the wrong person. I am not the person who posted above, although I do tend to find your comments about as POV as his/her. Also it is disappointing that you would leap to assume another editor has a conflict of interest, which is an ad hominem attack. We usually assume good faith here, even where we disagree, unless there is evidence to the contrary. I'll state emphatically I have no conflict of interest, do not work for any media company, do not have stock in them, do not play golf with them, etc. Are you satisfied? Avalongod (talk) 04:21, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

This having prodded me to talk a look at the page, I actually am in the middle of the other two positions. This page *should* be about more than crime, although at the moment it is not. However, 122...you DO need to provided cites if there is research out there on some of the topics you mention...which I am not aware of it existing (dehumanization, human trafficking, etc.). IF...you can provide cites for such research please do so and restore those, but only if you provide examples. The others I have swapped in I know there is research on, although it would be wise to include sections for those topics, otherwise what's the point in mentioning them. Avalongod (talk) 04:40, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

It's not about disagreeing with me. I don't have a strong opinion about the effects of pornography. I have a strong opinion about editors trying to exclude material simply because they don't like it. You say that you are not 84.132.80.170 at the Social effects of pornography article, but you two edit the same way, as I am certain that 84.132.80.170 was also the other IPs who recently tried to skew the article by removing negative information about viewing pornography, and you two both make comments about what you believe to be something researchers would or wouldn't say and what you believe to be "unscientific language," as though scholars never use words like "unhealthy relationships." Are you kidding me? And even if you aren't 84.132.80.170, you mean to tell me that you weren't any of the other IPs, that you did not edit this article until after I challenged 84.132.80.170? I highly doubt that, seeing as I followed one of the other IPs and that took me to some of the articles you are working on. This IP - IP 69.91.76.222 - is no doubt you. Just as this IP - IP 69.91.76.238 - is no doubt you. Not to mention, you'd been absent from editing under your registered account since March 1st and suddenly showed back up again on the 5th to reply to me. You are wrong that my comments suggesting the negative impact of the media are out of date. Researchers are continuously citing negative media effects, as can be seen on Google Books or Google Scholar, and that most certainly extends to viewing pornography. Yes, I have looked at scholarly papers. Not just blogs. And, yes, there is an adundance of research showing or otherwise suggesting that the media negatively affects people, just as there is a lot of research showing/suggesting that it positively affects people. Many men have stated that consistently viewing pornography led them to have unrealistic expectations of the types of sexual acts women want to engage in and that they were led to expect/desire these acts, when they wouldn't have if not for viewing porn. Hell, even this guy talks about it in his article "How Porn Is Ruining Anal Sex – And other ways porn is sex negative." There are also plenty of articles talking about how porn is making real sex less interesting to men. It's not like it's an unproven thing. And I say that as a guy who also watches porn and knows that it has desensitized me to certain sexual acts and has made it so that even viewing a naked woman doesn't immediately turn me on anymore. Yet I have not edited the Social effects of pornography article to say "Porn is bad, bad, bad" because I don't believe that it has to be. Only that it can be. So saying that you "could just as easily accuse [me] of having a conflict of interest, perhaps working for an anti-media advocacy group" is silly. My editing has not reflected that at all. And neither have my comments. Your editing, and some of your comments if you are 84.132.80.170, on the other hand? Have. I have no issue being cordial. I just hate POV-pushing edits that wrongly skew articles. There should generally be WP:Neutrality in our articles here, except for in the cases where there cannot be (such as the scientific community unanimously agreeing that smoking is bad).

And as for this article not only being about crime? Yes, it is about more than crime, as shown in the controlled section. Is the article mostly about crime? Yes. But it's not only about that. Nor should it be, as I said before. As for "dehumanization, human trafficking" and the examples you took out, I got that from the Anti-pornography movement article after reading through parts of the Pornography article. Desensitization should definitely be mentioned in the lead, since the article is addressing that. The correct option at the Desensitization disambiguation page is Desensitization (psychology), but that article needs major cleanup. 122.72.0.113 (talk) 09:17, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

It is ironic you state at one point that you have no strong opinion on the effects of pornography when the rest of your post clearly suggests otherwise. Obviously you have been selective in the articles you have read. The very page we are discussing cites scientific articles that disagree with the position you are stating. Perhaps you would do well to read some of those. As for editing in other pages (I assume you are referring to Adolescence), I did challenge some of the comments and statements made thereon, and if you read the talk page you'll see I was correct in most (but not all) of those cases. In the event other editors disagreed with me (Flyer22) we discussed the matter and came to a compromise we both agreed on. So I am not sure about what you are complaining...that I arbitrated disputes on how best to take a page with other invested editors until we were mutually satisfied. I'm sorry, sir/madam, but it seems to me that it is YOU who have a particular vision of "ownership" on the message on some of these pages. This rather silly lashing out and people who disagree with you, multiple people (although you assume all are one) is hardly collegial. I hope you will reconsider such behavior in the future.

As for research, if you say there is research being done on a particular topic you must cite some of the actual research being done, not just an anti-pornography wikipedia page saying such research exists. Actually took a look at the page and it doesn't say such research exists, only that some people argue porn could have those effects (not that they have evidence to prove it). Avalongod (talk) 21:12, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Ok, look 122, in thinking about this some more....we could probably go back and forth on and on about which of us is most silly, most biased, etc. You don't like all of my edits (nor those of 84, which I have no control over), fine. Duly noted. You're not the first, won't be the last. I'm probably more skeptical when it comes to media effects, and tend to challenge some claims I don't feel are well supported...sometimes I'm right, sometimes I'm not. Welcome to the human condition. I don't mind you disagreeing with me any more than you say you don't mind people disagreeing with you. So howabout this...why don't we both calm down, assume that the other is acting in good faith, albeit with different perceptions...if we work together on some of these articles, we can probably get them well balanced. Does that sound acceptable? Avalongod (talk) 22:19, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Er...I don't see how it's ironic that I state I don't have a strong opinion on the effects of pornography. That I'm saying it's a fact (as in many men have stated this) that viewing pornography has negatively affected many men's sex lives and that I don't want this downplayed in the article means that I have a strong opinion about the effects of pornography? I suppose wanting facts about negative effects presented and not downplayed in other articles makes me passionate about those topics too? Boy, you have a way of twisting words and seeing what you want to see. I get angry any time I see POV-editing that is downplaying anything having to do with research. It's funny that you say I have been selective in the articles I have read on media effects of pornography and that you point out that "the very page we are discussing cites scientific articles that disagree with the position [I am] stating," as though most research says pornography does not negatively affect people and as though the article doesn't present any negative material on pornography. Most of what is in that article is negative. It's not like most of it is saying that porn is a good thing. And let's not forget that I was mostly talking about how porn desensitizes men to a variety of sexual acts, normalizes sexual acts that are not as common as others or aren't common at all, and makes sex less interesting. All points that have been brought up by doctors and psychologists, and reported in research. And moving on from there, it's downright insulting (almost as insulting as you referring to me as a "sir/madam," when I've told you before that I am male) that you would point out only the Adolescence article, as though that is not you (69.91 [fill in the other numbers here]) at the other articles. You expect me to believe that you are not those IPs, when you edit the same way -- most of the same articles with the same type of edit summaries -- and showed up not long after these IPs to make exactly the same or very similar edits? Not to mention how they stop(ped) editing right after you show(ed) up to continue the same work, and these articles are not very high-traffic-editing articles? Forget IP 84.132.80.170. You are most definitely IPs 69.91.76.222 and 69.91.76.238. Looking at the adolescence talk page discussion you took part in shows this just as clearly as your (registered account) and those IPs' contributions. There's also Talk:Adolescent sexuality in the United States and other talk pages. If you can't even be honest about this, how do you expect me to trust you and work with you while assuming good faith? Maybe I should ask other editors to weigh in on whether or not you are these IPs (the two IPs that share the bulk of your contibutions), so that you can see how it is very much a matter of WP:Common sense that you are. You call it "lashing out [at] people who disagree with [me]," when all I did was express a concern about the very clear slant of your edits in every media-effects related article. You are always pushing for a "Negative effects? What negative effects? There couldn't possibly be any negative effects" angle. Excuse me for being concerned.

As for citing, per WP:Lead, the lead does not have to be cited if the same information is referenced in the lower body of the article, and some of what I transported from the other article is. So I may have made a mistake in including all of it. But there is enough evidence to support some of what I added to the lead, which is why that material is still up there. 122.72.0.113 (talk) 07:56, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

IP and Avalongod, will you describe what you want done with this article so that we can take it from there? As I stated on my talk page, "I don't think that dividing the studies into 'controlled' and 'epidemiological' is the best idea. How will contributors always know if a study is one or the other and where to put it? Adding on to that, a lot of studies are only available to people as abstracts (unless they go that extra step to access them), which can therefore stifle their assessment of whether or not a study is 'controlled' or 'epidemiological.'" Flyer22 (talk) 19:54, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

Sorry I was lazy and haven't been back here a bit (I'm sure I'll be blamed for any anonymous edits taking place in the meantime.)  ;) I'm honestly not sure what the best organization is though. Right now it has a hodgepodge feel, and a lot of the writing strays into advocacy, which is not surprising given how open this topic is to the culture wars. I think in general it needs a lot of careful and objective editing, and some better organization. Perhaps divide into sections for "evidence porn is bad" and "evidence porn is not so bad"? Would that be better organization? Avalongod (talk) 05:37, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

In any case, I don't think it makes sense to explain what controlled and epidemiological studies are in the article. The article is not about research design. I think the concepts should just be made "clickable" 60.241.126.187 (talk) 10:02, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

JF self-sourced edits

The recent (2012-04-13) edits by user John Foubert seem to be self-sourced. Besides that, they did change how the issue is presented to match their own published views on the matter, making these possibly POV edits. --Enmoku (talk) 10:42, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

Well, self-sources can be relevant if they are peer-reviewed and balanced with other sources, and presented in a non-advocacy manner. However in the cases of JF, the sources appear to have an "advocacy" tone, that would probably constitute original research. I advocate removing the additions. Avalongod (talk) 05:32, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

Although a rewrite may be reasonable. However it might make sense to mix in to some of the other material. Not sure that stuff deserves its own section. My biggest problem is where the edits "interpret" the data from the articles, sometimes in sensationalist ways. Avalongod (talk) 05:34, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

Review of available sources + additional sources that deserve mention

A nice review of available scientific info which someone better than me should integrate, courtesy of society for scientific study of sexuality http://www.sexscience.org/dashboard/articleImages/SSSS-Pornography.pdf — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.244.38.161 (talk) 22:21, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

Very One Sided article

The article fails to give the positive side of porn any real length. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.3.22.18 (talk) 17:50, 6 August 2012 (UTC) http://www.samefacts.com/2011/06/crime-control/the-startling-decline-in-rape/ "The rate of forcible rape as reported on victimization surveys peaked in 1979 at about 2.8 per 1000 population (age 12 or older). In 2009 the rate fell to 0.5." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.3.22.18 (talk) 17:49, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Requested move

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

The result of the move request was: moved per request as uncontested for a week. Favonian (talk) 16:48, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

---

Social effects of pornography → Effects of pornography – The article started out and is still primarily about effects of pornography on crime rates and such. There is already information on effects to individual users in the article, and there would be no reason for a separate article on them. Editor2286 (talk) 18:08, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

WP:MED, studies and accuracy

I alerted WP:MED to this article because it continues to be a POV mess on both sides (those sides being the ones who state that pornography has negative effects on people/is generally bad vs. those who state that pornography has positive effects on people/is generally good or is okay for the most part). The neutral stance is not so much of a problem. It does not appear that WP:MED is going to be any help on this matter, however. And, Drbogdan, I disagree with this edit, because, like I stated at WP:MED, that is supported lower in the article...including by the Among criminals and juveniles section. We don't need to be reporting one side of what studies state on that matter, as though there is some general consensus on it among researchers. There isn't. The fact is that, like that bit you removed stated, studies on the effects of pornography concerning crime and domestic violence have been inconclusive. But I'm not too concerned with this article (I don't need the added stress); I simply would like it to be accurate and WP:Neutral (keeping the WP:Due weight part of WP:Neutral in mind as well). Flyer22 (talk) 02:40, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

@Flyer22 - Thank You for noting the supporting text/references in the lower portion of the article - I *entirely* agree with you - the relevant edits have now been reverted to the original text - Thanks again for your related notes - and - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 03:05, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

Well, you may have noticed by now, but what you added back was changed; if the text is to stay like that, it needs a typo fix, the removal of two commas and the addition of "or." Either way, the addition of "many" was not accurate, depending on how you classify "many." I don't think that there have many studies on that matter. Flyer22 (talk) 03:11, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

And, yes, I see that you added the previous text back again. Looks like some discussion is going to be needed on a satisfactory lead on that matter for more than just you and me. But I don't have anything more to state on it than what I stated above. Flyer22 (talk) 03:18, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

 Done - yes, restored the original text - without the cn-template - hopefully, this is *entirely* ok - enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 03:26, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

Opposition to the point made about Pornography having no evidence for addiction

It has been recognized that repeated use of any substance whether it be chemical or viewing material(i.e repeated TV viewing) to escape negative feelings can be mentally addictive. Please consider my reference to TV addiction. I am active on this topic being a member of the NoFap community on Reddit and feel passionately about the negative affects of porn on males< ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Television_addiction</ref>RichardUK2014 (talk) 15:05, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for your comments - the reference you cited - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Television_addiction - in your edit seems to be WP:CIRCULAR - see WP:RELIABLE for a better source - also, seems the following may apply => WP:NOR, WP:NPOV, WP:NOTFORUM, WP:NOTSOAPBOX - in any case - hope this helps in some way - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 16:45, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

The medical consensus in 2013 was:

American Psychiatric Association (2013). Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (Fifth ed.). Arlington, VA: American Psychiatric Publishing. p. 481. ISBN 978-0-89042-555-8. Thus, groups of repetitive behaviors, which some term behavioral addictions, with such subcategories as "sex addiction," "exercise addiction," or "shopping addiction," are not included because at this time there is insufficient peer-reviewed evidence to establish the diagnostic criteria and course descriptions needed to identify these behaviors as mental disorders.

Apparently, no revolution took place in the medical world since then. You have to have extremely persuasive evidence in order to posit that there is clear and decisive evidence for pornography being an addiction. A quote in the article says that later pornography could be recognized as an addiction (say 10 or 20 years later). But now it's still 2014 and no persuasive evidence has been produced. A self-help forum of people persuaded by a fringe anti-porn activist who lacks any credentials as a researcher and developed a phobia for orgasms won't do. We need authoritative secondary sources, see WP:MEDRS and WP:MEDASSESS. Tgeorgescu (talk) 16:53, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

By that quote I meant what dr. Kruger says at http://www.macleans.ca/society/life/can-swearing-off-porn-improve-your-life/ Tgeorgescu (talk) 17:15, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

An article which supports the status of sex addiction as a mental disorder also implies that avoiding sex is a mental disorder, saying "In contrast, Dr. Carnes (IITAP 2011) defines sexual anorexia (a repetitive behavior) as “an obsessive state in which the physical, mental, and emotional task of avoiding sex dominates one's life.” Like self-starvation with food or compulsive dieting or hoarding of money, deprivation of sex can make one feel powerful and defended against all hurts." Quoted from https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4040958/ Tgeorgescu (talk) 18:48, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for commenting on this guys, I believe it comes down to personality types, some people say food is not addictive but if people have depression or low self esteem and they know they have a source of pleasure they will reach for it out of habit even when they know it is not beneficial to do so. I will try and find a reliable source but I see some have been mention here alreadyRichardUK2014 (talk) 14:23, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

Not a forum or a soapbox - WP:SPA edits.

Factual claims backed by peer-reviewed research have been deleted The page was entirely reverted to the previous, outdated version. The editor's (Drbogdan) sole explanation was "it was better before." How can that be, when two new brain studies supporting what I said have come out in the last two months? Here's what I posted. It's factual, and you need to explain your actions, Drbogdan. +++ Pornography addiction is a debated[16] behavioral addiction characterized by compulsive, repeated use of pornographic material until it causes serious negative consequences to one's physical, mental, social, and/or financial well-being.[17][18] When researchers at Cambridge University compared brain scans of 19 compulsive porn users with brain scans of healthy controls, they found that compulsive porn users showed the same brain changes within the same brain structures as seen in pathological consumption of drugs. Also, "Sexual desire or subjective measures of wanting appeared dissociated from liking, in line with incentive-salience theories of addiction in which there exists enhanced wanting but not liking of salient rewards."[19] Interestingly, a recent study by German researchers at the Max Planck Institute found addiction-like brain changes in non-addicted porn users, which correlated with how much porn they consume and how many years they had been consuming porn. Specifically, the more porn the subjects used, the less gray matter in the striatum. Also, the connection between the striatum and prefrontal cortex worsened with increased porn watching. Moreover, the heaviest porn users had less response to sexual images, thus less "sexual desire."[20] There is no diagnosis of pornography addiction in the current Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (the DSM-5).[21] The DSM-5 never specifically considered internet pornography addiction as a diagnosis. However it rejected "hypersexuality" as a diagnosis because "there is insufficient peer-reviewed evidence to establish the diagnostic criteria and course descriptions needed to identify these behaviors as mental disorders."[16] Notwithstanding the current position of the DSM, the American Society of Addiction Medicine (thousands of addiction MDs and addiction researchers) has publicly stated that sexual behavior addictions are real, and fundamentally the same condition as substance abuse addictions.[22][23] A 2014 review, whose lead author David Ley wrote "The Myth of Sexual Addiction," concluded that high-frequency use of visual sexual stimuli "fails to meet standards of addiction", e.g. asserting that it can reduce unhealthy behaviors.[24] Scientists state that excessive pornography viewing can be unhealthy if it becomes problematic for an individual, including excessive time spent viewing pornography instead of interacting with others. Individuals may report depression, social isolation, career loss, decreased productivity, or financial consequences as a result of their excessive Internet pornography viewing impeding their social life.[25]+++ It appears that there is some "gate keeping" going on with respect to this page. If you're trying to keep out peer-reviewed studies by top addiction neuroscientists something is up. Please justify your actions. Chrislyte (talk) 03:30, 30 July 2014 (UTC)Chrislyte — Chrislyte (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. I'm not User:Drbogdan, but according to WP:MEDRS one problem is replacing secondary sources with primary sources. MEDRS says that primary sources should in principle be avoided, preference is given to reviews and documents voicing medical consensus. Tgeorgescu (talk) 10:31, 30 July 2014 (UTC) FWIW - Thank you *very much* for the comments - @Chrislyte - no, gatekeeping is not intended - reliably sourced material representing a consensus viewpoint, in some fair and balanced way, seems better if possible - @Tgeorgescu - yes, I *entirely* agree with your comments re WP:MEDRS - better to present medical consensus in secondary sources, rather than primary ones - hope this helps in some way - Thanks again for the comments - and - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 12:23, 30 July 2014 (UTC) Chrislyte Secondary sources are certainly appropriate when there is a consensus. There is no consensus on the effects of pornography or pornography addiction. In fact, the two studies cited are the first ever fMRI studies published on porn users. The only secondary source cited opposing the concept of pornography addiction had as its lead author David Ley, the "Author of The Myth of Sex Addiction". It was published in an obscure journal, which had been on hiatus for four years. This contrasts to the two brain studies I cited by Cambridge University and the Max Plank institute. What's more the sentence associated with this review makes no sense. "A 2014 review found that high-frequency use of visual sexual stimuli "fails to meet standards of addiction", e.g. because it can reduce unhealthy behaviors." This empty suggestion is that porn viewing cannot be addictive because the authors claim it reduces rape in certain individuals. Aside the questionable correlation between a decline in reported sexual offenses as porn availability has increased, this says nothing about whether porn is addictive. This sentence becomes laughable when juxtaposed by the Ley, et al. claim that porn use has remained steady for over 30 years. From page 2 - "VSS use does not appear to be increasing despite increased availability." Citing the Ley et al review as a secondary source is especially problematic as the authors misrepresented their original sources, and many citations had nothing to do with text. They also omitted/ignored nearly all studies that counter their claims. I request that when citing this review that both of you also cite Ley's original sources so that we can judge for ourselves whether the studies back up their claims. If you would like a genuine review of relevant studies consider this one by a German team, which completely contradicts the "review" put out by Ley, Prause and Finn. "Prefrontal control and Internet addiction: a theoretical model and review of neuropsychological and neuroimaging findings" (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24904393) From the review: "Most of the current articles on neuropsychological and neuroimaging correlates of Internet addiction conclude that this clinically relevant disorder should be classified as a behavioral addiction. We agree with this conclusion." The review covers all internet addiction studies, both porn-related and otherwise, and concludes that internet addiction is a behavioral addiction with subtypes that need to be differentiated, such as pornography, gaming and social media. The review explains further: "The results [of the review] converge to the view that an addictive use of the Internet is linked to functional brain changes involving parts of the prefrontal cortex, accompanied by changes in other cortical (e.g., temporal) and subcortical (e.g., ventral striatum) regions. Additionally, there are some hints for structural brain changes, which also involve parts of the prefrontal cortex. The functional changes in prefrontal and striatal areas are primarily observable when individuals with Internet addiction perform certain tasks, in particular those measuring executive functions and cue-reactivity. These results, together with those emerging from neuropsychological studies, suggest that prefrontal control processes are reduced in individuals who are addicted to the Internet and may be related to the patients’ loss of control over their Internet use. " The reviewers' conclusions are entirely in alignment with the two peer-reviewed studies on porn users' brains I cited. So it's evident where the true consensus is among addiction neuroscientists. Again, I don't see how you can justify removing carefully performed studies from two of the world's finest research institutes while featuring an irresponsible, one-sided "review" by authors with a demonstrable bias. This has to be gatekeeping at its most egregious. How do we appeal this action?— Preceding unsigned comment added by Chrislyte (talk • contribs) 23:22, 30 July 2014 (UTC) — Chrislyte (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Regarding this bit you added, that needs to be more of a summary on the matter, with anything there that is not covered lower in the article moved to a spot lower in the article; this is per the WP:Lead guideline. The lead should summarize the article's contents and should generally not mention anything that is not covered lower in the article. Per WP:Dated, you should also generally avoid using the word recent. Flyer22 (talk) 00:03, 31 July 2014 (UTC) So you still intend to gate keep and ignore the substance of my remarks, all of which are perfectly relevant to the title? Clearly these two new studies could not be more relevant to a Wiki page on "Effects of Pornography." Chrislyte (talk • contribs — Chrislyte (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. — Preceding undated comment added 00:37, 31 July 2014 (UTC) Claims that liberalization of pornography in society may be associated with decreased rape need to acknowledge more recent conflicting evidence See, for example, "How to Lie with Rape Statistics: America's Hidden Rape Crisis" (2014) http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2404424 From this review: "Further, the corrected data reveal that the study period [the last 20 years] includes fifteen to eighteen of the highest rates of rape since tracking of the data began in 1930. Instead of experiencing the widely reported "great decline" in rape, America is in the midst of a hidden rape crisis. Further, the techniques that conceal rape complaints deprioritize those cases so that police conduct little or no investigation." Chrislyte — Chrislyte (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Effects on sexual function. Drbogdan cites popular article about masturbation (not porn), yet rejects study about porn users. Ley et al. review no longer valid. User Drbogdan has now added a NY times article as a reference for Effects on sexual function. This article had many opinions, so it is internally inconsistent. The quotes cited by User Drbogdan were about masturbation's effects on sexual performance, not Internet porn's effects. It has no place here. I can link to articles and books by urologists and sex therapists that say that porn induced ED exists. Is this the game you want to play? For example, Cornell Urology Professor, and Author of The New Naked, said in this article (and in his book) "When I say that porn is killing America's sexual behavior, I am not kidding, nor am I exaggerating." "I can tell how much porn a man watches as soon as he starts talking candidly about any sexual dysfunction he has." "A man who masturbates frequently can soon develop erection problems when he's with his partner. Add porn to the mix, and he can become unable to have sex." In addition to citing quotes about masturbation, not porn, User Drbogdan is attempting to keep peer-reviewed study by Cambridge neuroscientists from appearing. Recent Peer-reviewed research by Cambridge University team headed by Addiction neuroscientist Valerie 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. This attempt to disregard peer-reviewed studies, yet cite random quotes about masturbation (not porn) within lay articles containing conflicting opinions, is disturbing. Does Wikipedia endorse such behaviors? Chrislyte (talk) 15:40, 31 July 2014 (UTC)Chrislyte — Chrislyte (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. @Chrislyte - Thank you for your comments - no, I didn't add the NYT ref (ref doesn't seem to exist in the article?) - yes, I reverted your recent edits - AFAIK - your suggested edits presently lack agreement among editors on the talk page - and seem to be in dispute for one reason or another - please try to develop WP:CONSENSUS, if possible, among editors for your suggested text/refs - Thanks again for your comments - and - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 17:19, 31 July 2014 (UTC) It is New York (magazine), and the article reflects the views of a professor of urology and reproductive medicine, see Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources (medicine)#Popular press. Also, it states consulting with an unknown number of MDs and psychologists. Chrislyte seems happy to cite a popular article for Dr. Krueger's opinion that he considers that someday porn addiction will become part of DSM, but does not like the bad news from other popular articles. Tgeorgescu (talk) 18:33, 31 July 2014 (UTC) Sorry, but the NYT article was still there, as FN 10. Moreover, you didn't address the segment of the article quoted in the footnotes was about masturbation not "the effects of pornography". Quotes from the NYTimes Article in question - "Every doctor and psychologist I spoke with informed me that “there’s no evidence” to link masturbation to sexual performance, and that it’s an over­simplification to think that frequent masturbation is the cause of delayed ejaculation. According to ­Stephen Snyder, a sex therapist in Manhattan, it’s “most often not the case.” Darius Paduch, a professor of urology and reproductive medicine at Weill ­Cornell Medical College, went so far as to say that ejaculation leads to greater fertility. “In our practice, we pretty much make men achieve an erection at least three to four times a week,” he says. Paduch also cited studies that found that men who ejaculated multiple times a week faced less risk of erectile dysfunction later in life." Users Drbogdan & Tgeorgescu: Please explain why you both are citing quotes about masturbation in a "pornography effects" article. Explain your justification for deleting the peer-reviewed study from Cambridge University. Note that Ley et al claimed that no peer-reviewed studies on porn and ED had yet to be published. This is no longer the case. Which means the Ley review is no longer valid. Science moves on. Dr. Krueger's statement was at least directly on point in terms of the misleading statements implying that the DSM had formally considered and "specifically rejected" internet pornography addiction. It never had, and Krueger's remarks as a DSM insider, were clarification of that. There's no consensus on the statement that there's no evidence of a link between ED and porn, so I'll revert. Enjoy!Chrislyte (talk) 18:41, 1 August 2014 (UTC)Chrislyte — Chrislyte (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. The argument that pornography without masturbation produces erectile dysfunction is, to put it frankly, bizarre. Tgeorgescu (talk) 22:11, 1 August 2014 (UTC) Your statement is once again an attempt to conflate the effects of masturbation with porn use. The argument is that pornography use cause erectile dysfunction. The article says that masturbation does not cause ED. No one is arguing that masturbation causes ED. The quotes cited are about masturbation n NOT porn. This is clearly gate keeping by a few users. Chrislyte (talk) 19:39, 2 August 2014 (UTC)Chrislyte I'm conforming the "pornography addiction" section to the Wiki page on "pornography addiction" as it seems wise to keep them consistent.Chrislyte (talk) 18:31, 1 August 2014 (UTC)Chrislyte — Chrislyte (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. User Drbogdan is deleting peer-reviewed studies & hiding this by using ":Not a forum or a soapbox" User Drbogdan is inappropriately labeling the attempts to cite peer-reviewed studies as Not a forum or a soapbox - WP:SPA edits I have attempted to cite several peer reviewed studies. A 2014 was on rape stats. It was rejected without any valid reason. "How to Lie with Rape Statistics: America's Hidden Rape Crisis" (2014) http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2404424 From this review: "Further, the corrected data reveal that the study period [the last 20 years] includes fifteen to eighteen of the highest rates of rape since tracking of the data began in 1930. Two 2014 fMIR studies on porn users, by Cambridge university and the Max Planck Institute: 1) CAMBRIDGE - Neural Correlates of Sexual Cue Reactivity in Individuals with and without Compulsive Sexual Behaviours 2) MAX PLANCK INSTITUTE - Brain Structure and Functional Connectivity Associated With Pornography Consumption: The Brain on Porn In section "Effects on sexual function" User Drbogdan replaced the Cambridge study, and quotes by Urologists, with a NY Times article that contained quotes about masturbation not causing ED. These quotes have have nothing to do with the sexual effects of porn. This article has no place here. In addition to citing quotes only about masturbation (not porn), User Drbogdan is attempting to keep a peer-reviewed study by Cambridge university from appearing. The Cambridge University team was headed by Addiction neuroscientist Valerie Voon. Her stdudy 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. This practice by User Drbogdan to delte peer-reviewed studies, and replace them with irrelevant quotes quotes about masturbation (not porn) within lay articles quoting containing conflicting opinions, is a blatant attempt at censorship. The same goes for deleting the latest review of the literature studies on rape statistics is censorship. Hiding the debate on the talk page is a clear attempt at censorship. I have contacted Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chrislyte (talk • contribs) — Chrislyte (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. 20:08, 2 August 2014 (UTC) User Drbogdan is deleting peer-reviewed studies & hiding this by using ":Not a forum or a soapbox" User Drbogdan is inappropriately labeling the attempts to cite peer-reviewed studies as Not a forum or a soapbox - WP:SPA edits I have attempted to cite several peer reviewed studies. A 2014 was on rape stats. It was rejected without any valid reason. "How to Lie with Rape Statistics: America's Hidden Rape Crisis" (2014) http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2404424 From this review: "Further, the corrected data reveal that the study period [the last 20 years] includes fifteen to eighteen of the highest rates of rape since tracking of the data began in 1930. The following 2014 fMIR studies on porn users, by Cambridge university and the Max Planck Institute, are also being deleted by user Drbogdan : 1) CAMBRIDGE - Neural Correlates of Sexual Cue Reactivity in Individuals with and without Compulsive Sexual Behaviours 2) MAX PLANCK INSTITUTE - Brain Structure and Functional Connectivity Associated With Pornography Consumption: The Brain on Porn In section "Effects on sexual function" User Drbogdan replaced the above Cambridge study, and quotes by Urologists, with a NY Times article that contained quotes about masturbation not causing ED. Obviously, these quotes have have nothing to do with the sexual effects of porn. This article has no place here. In addition to citing quotes about masturbation (not porn), User Drbogdan is attempting to keep a peer-reviewed study by Cambridge university from appearing anywhere in this Wiki article. The Cambridge University team of 11 neuroscientists was headed by Addiction specialist Valerie Voon. Her study 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. This practice by User Drbogdan deleting peer-reviewed studies, and replacing them with irrelevant quotes about masturbation (not porn) found in lay articles containing conflicting opinions, is a blatant attempt at censorship. The same goes for deleting the latest review of the literature on rape statistics. This attempt to hide the debate, and to delete peer-reviewed stduies is a clear attempt at censorship. I have reported this to Wikipedia. Chrislyte (talk) 20:49, 2 August 2014 (UTC)Chrislyte — Chrislyte (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Persistent Additions of Disputed Material by User:Chrislyte.

{{help}} Seems User:Chrislyte (WP:SPA) has been unable to develop a WP:CONSENSUS among editors for his/her edits of disputed material - and continues to add disputed material to the main article without any agreement among other editors - such edits have been reverted several times (rv1, rv2) in order that the disputed material be discussed among editors - and some agreement reached before the material is added to the main article - but to no avail - there has been no WP:CONSENSUS for the material being added - seems to be a bit of WP:OWN or related on the part of User:Chrislyte for some reason - if possible, please help sort this all out - Thanking you in advance for your help with this - and - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 21:02, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

I really do hope we can reach a consensus. Because it shocking to me that one editor Drbogdan has the ability to suppress peer-reviewed studies, while simultaneously citing lay articles that have nothing to do with "The Effects of Pornography." This same editor has yet to provide a single reason for these actions. Instead, the editor hides the debate (and the studies) under the inappropriate "Not a forum or a soapbox" label.Chrislyte (talk) 21:14, 2 August 2014 (UTC)Chrislyte — Chrislyte (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

@User:Chrislyte - Thank you for your comments - No, as before, I've not cited the article(s) you mention (news to me) - Yes, a discussion about improving the article and working toward some WP:CONSENSUS among editors has always been welcome of course - at the moment, there does not seem to be any agreement among editors for your views and/or references - WP:BALANCE and WP:NPOV may be issues of course - your (WP:WALLOFTEXT?) posts on the talk page portend to help improve the article - but may only be there to push your pov (WP:POVPUSH?) instead - on the talk page - and in the main article - perhaps others can help sort this all out - in any case - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 22:37, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

@Drbogdan - Improving this article would be to allow peer-reviewed research that is on topic (porn use affecting sexual function), in place of lay articles that are off topic (quotes about masturbation). Take for example the Effects on sexual function section. Drbogdan continues to cite a lay article that has nothing to do with the sexual effects of porn use. Citation 10 is Witt, Emily. "Hands Off". New York Magazine - as mentioned about 5 times in the now hidden talk page. The quotes cited are:

"Every doctor and psychologist I spoke with informed me that “there’s no evidence” to link masturbation to sexual performance, and that it’s an over¬simplification to think that frequent masturbation is the cause of delayed ejaculation."

"Paduch also cited studies that found that men who ejaculated multiple times a week faced less risk of erectile dysfunction later in life."

Drbogdan has yet to answer my simple question posed several times on the talk page - "Why do you keep citing quotes about masturbation from a lay article in a Wiki page about the effects of pornography?"

Citation 11 in "Effects on sexual function" is Ley, et al. Drbogdan cites this quote:

"While no empirical claims tying erectile function and ‘porn addiction’ were identified, this is a frequent media claim"

This claim by Ley et al, is no longer valid as empirical evidence has been published by the Cambridge University - Neural Correlates of Sexual Cue Reactivity in Individuals with and without Compulsive Sexual Behaviours. This study found that porn use caused ED and low libido in 60% of subjects identified as compulsive porn users.

A second study by the Max Plank institute, published in JAMA Psychiatry, found less sexual arousal correlating with the amounts of porn used, and years of use. See - Brain Structure and Functional Connectivity Associated With Pornography Consumption: The Brain on Porn

Again, no explanation was given by Drbogdan for replacing 2 recent studies by elite institutions, with an out of date citation (Ley, et al) whose lead author has never published any research. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chrislyte (talk • contribs) 03:46, 4 August 2014 (UTC) — Chrislyte (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

@User:Chrislyte - FWIW - Thank you for your comments - no, as noted several times before, I did not add the citation you mention - reverting your disputed material to the original text/refs may have contained this citation - which may, nonetheless, be preferred to your proposed, but disputed, material at present - AFAIK - no other editor agrees that your disputed material should replace the original text/refs at this time - seems issues of WP:MEDRS, WP:BALANCE and WP:NPOV have been raised with your material - in any case - hope this helps in some way - Thanks again for your comments - and - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 13:14, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

@Drbogdan - So you repeatability hit revert without considering the content of what you deleted or what you have reverted. I guess that says it all. Chrislyte (talk) 15:49, 4 August 2014 (UTC)Chrislyte — Chrislyte (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

@Chrislye - No - those are your words - not mine - more simply => no other editor agrees with *your proposed material*, for the reasons noted above, at this time - the issue is not me - or you - the issue is that *your proposed material* could be better afaik atm - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 16:06, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

@Drbogdan No matter how you spin this, you are the editor deleting peer-reviewed studies on the sexual effects of Internet pornography and replacing them with off-topic quotes about masturbation from lat articles. The fact that one of your fellow editors - Tgeorgescu - condones this breach of intellectual honesty is an example of why so many people avoid Wikipedia as a source. Yours and Tgeorgescu inability to engage on the talk page with any coherent response can be seen by all. Chrislyte (talk) 17:51, 6 August 2014 (UTC)Chrislyte

As I told on another talk page, I am not principally opposed to the idea of pornography addiction and when it will become part of medical orthodoxy, Wikipedia will write that in big shinny letters. The problem is that we aren't there yet (if you don't believe me read what dr. Kruger said in the cited article: “The whole notion of what goes on in someone’s brain when they’re sexually excited is just starting to be evaluated”). So the intellectually honest attitude is to wait and see when and if that happens. We cannot make big leaps of faith to a presumed future and pretend that the pornography addiction would already be medical orthodoxy, it isn't, and claiming that it is just make the problem worse. All very limited population size brain studies could be due to bogus statistical significance. At a significance of 0.05 every 1 in 20 medical studies will throw a false positive, that's why primary sources are of very limited relevance. As prof. dr. Martijn B. Katan said pertaining to his own field (nutrition), one study means no studies. As simple as that. Only lots of studies mean evidence. Tgeorgescu (talk) 18:07, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

@Tgeorgescu - This particular thread has been about Effects on sexual function Drbogdan has repeatedly cited 1) a lay article about masturbation, not porn use, and 2) Ley, et al which is no longer valid because its claim is that there are no peer-reviewed studies on the sexual effects on porn. There are such studies, cited above. I would like to resolve the "effects on sexual function" dispute as an off-topic lay article and out of date Ley et al, should not take precedence over peer-reviewed studies directly on point by top institutions.

As for the effects of pornography use, there exist dozens of studies, including longitudinal, that show negative effects. I have held off citing those as I assumed you and Drbogdan would simply delete my content containing those citations.

I will continue to challenge wiki content based on Ley et al, as most of the claims put forth in that "review" are not supported by the studies cited in the review. We need to examine their source materials, and the studies they omitted.Chrislyte (talk) 21:34, 9 August 2014 (UTC)Chrislyte

That is original research. Ley et al. is a WP:MEDRS compliant source. Tgeorgescu (talk) 22:51, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

Tgeorgescu Ley et al. is no longer valid as the only claim it made was that there had been no studies. That's it. Since its publication Cambridge university published a study on compulsive porn users, where it was reported that porn use caused ED. The second s citation is about masturbation, not porn's effects. Please limit your citations to studies or articles about porn. This is not a wiki about masturbation.Chrislyte (talk) 23:03, 10 October 2014 (UTC)Chryslyte

@Chrislyte - I *entirely* agree with the comments made by Tgeorgescu above - also - FWIW - please see WP:AGF & WP:NPA => as before, *your proposed material* could be better - and more agreeable to other editors - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 19:58, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

If you cannot agree - and we don't expect that all editors will always agree, then the next step is Wikipedia:Dispute resolution Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 22:12, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

@Ronhjones - Thank you for your comments - should note that @User:Chrislyte continues to add disputed text to the article - and without agreement from any other editor - {{POV}} templates have been added to relevant sections (including Effects on sexual function and Addiction) in the main article to alert readers to the issue - hope this is *entirely* ok - please let me know if otherwise of course - Thanks again for your comments - and - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 22:37, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

@Ronhjones Thanks. I have contacted Wikipedia. The other editor, Drbogdan has refused to engage on the talk page. Instead, he has hidden the talk section under "WP:MED, studies and accuracy".Chrislyte (talk) 03:54, 4 August 2014 (UTC)Chrislyte — Chrislyte (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Unrelated quote

Emily Witt's quote, footnote to the 'Effects on sexual function' section, is about the effects of masturbation and ejaculation, not visual stimuli, and is thus, in my opinion, unrelated. My first thought was to delete the footnote altogether, but after some thought I'm inclined to believe that a more thorough wording would be a better approach. Not sure how to address this, perhaps someone will feel like doing it. Corntrooper (talk) 02:32, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

As I said, it is a bizarre argument that pornography without masturbation would produce erectile dysfunction. The whole argument that pornography would lead to erectile dysfunction is because some claim that excessive masturbation produces erectile dysfunction, and pornography simply implies more masturbation. See it as a modus tollens:

pornography leads to masturbation;

masturbation does not lead to erectile dysfunction;

therefore pornography does not lead to erectile dysfunction. Tgeorgescu (talk) 21:24, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

Besides Witt discusses fapstronauts: people who avoid porn and masturbation like pest. Tgeorgescu (talk) 21:26, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

Corntrooper - This logic is tortured and nonsensical. This wiki is about pornography, not masturbation. No one is claiming that masturbation causes erectile dysfunction. Porn users condition their sexual arousal to watching porn videos, clicking from video to video, constant novelty, searching for new videos and new genres, along with maintaining a voyeuristic position. When they try to masturbate without porn, they cannot achieve an erection, because they cannot engage in the aforementioned activities. Please, no more straw men about masturbation and ED. Let's stick with porn use causing erectile dysfunction. Chrislyte (talk) 22:48, 10 October 2014 (UTC)ChrisLyte

The majority of men who masturbate use porn; why don't they develop erectile dysfunction? Let's assume that 90% of masturbating men use porn and 10% don't. Why then those 90% don't suffer from erectile dysfunction? Your recipe is porn + masturbation = erectile dysfunction. Why does this does not happen in the real world (as shown by statistics)? Porn isn't a post-2000 invention, your father and his father had porn available, if they wished. And their generations masturbated, too, with porn. Tgeorgescu (talk) 00:46, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

Very few men are capable to have erection-at-command (i.e., regardless of erotic stimulation). Those who are capable of it are mostly the porn actors (see the HBO documentary Pornucopia for details). So, it is a weird idea that not being capable of erection-at-command amounts to erectile dysfunction. Erectile dysfunction would be unable to have an erection bereft of naked partners or other erotic simulation (such as porn). And of course nudists are known for not getting aroused when they see naked people, so that does not work for them. Tgeorgescu (talk) 09:36, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

There was already a lengthy discussion about it at Talk:Masturbation/Archive 10#The bald claim that NO causal harm is known from masturbation is false. This is an important error on a .22top importance.22 page on sexuality.. So, the argument about porn causing erectile dysfunction is a rehashed version of Wilson's masturbation phobia. I mean that guy is so funny as to pretend that orgasm is forbidden even for a married couple! Tgeorgescu (talk) 19:37, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

Definitions and variants of pornography

It would be better if the article would be more detailed on the nature of the pornography related to a given association, rather than the sweeping generalization, "pornography". Depending on whom you ask, "pornography" can be even pin-ups, such as the swimsuit edition of Sports Illustrated. There must be a whole gradation between that and chained tripe anal penetration with horses, and I can't believe it all leads to the same effects. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.18.17.180 (talk) 01:59, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

Unreliable medical sources

According to WP:MEDRS, primary medical sources are rather unreliable for establishing objective facts which are to be stated in the voice of Wikipedia. I restored the maintenance templates indicating WP:MEDRS violations. Tgeorgescu (talk) 01:38, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

@Tgeorgescu Ley et al. is not accepted by PubMed, and it misrepresents it's primary sources mor simply doesn't provide ciations for claims. For example, this article cites Ley, et al for the following:

• "An academic review notes that a large, lucrative industry promises treatments for "pornography addiction"

Clearly this claim is taken from page 1 of ley et, al, where the authors say:

• "Since a large, lucrative industry has promised treatments for pornography addiction despite this poor evidence, scientific psychologists are called to declare the emperor (treatment industry) has no clothes (supporting evidence)."

However, there is no citation for the above claim. Making a claim without a citation is more than unreliable. Please cite a source that references an underlying study on the "lucrative nature" of this fabricated industry.Chrislyte (talk) 02:55, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

I have already answered that claim upon your talk page. Tgeorgescu (talk) 03:11, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

Undergraduate essay

I removed an external link to an undergraduate essay. It is full of value judgments, biased use of sources, etc. It is unrepresentative. You know, there are medicine teachers who oppose porn (such as Donald L. Hilton, Jr., MD), they could be cited instead of that undergraduate essay. I mean, these teachers are scientifically seen a tiny minority, but they are still notable for this debate. Tgeorgescu (talk) 13:01, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

You know, I have online several of my undergraduate essays. How about inserting external links to these in 10-20 Wikipedia articles? How about every Wikipedian doing that? Tgeorgescu (talk) 13:43, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Drive-by tagging: Template:POV

As seen here and here, I reverted Roshu Bangal (talk · contribs) twice on adding Template: POV to the article, stating, "Per Template:POV, drive-by tagging is not allowed. Either make a case on the talk page or this tag will stay removed." and "Once again, you need to specifically point out problems you feel the article has on the article talk page. We are not mindreaders." Despite that, Roshu Bangal added the tag a third time.

Roshu Bangal, judging by your very first edit to Wikipedia, and your edits to Wikipedia since then, you are not a WP:Newbie. So you should be familiar with the WP:Edit warring policy. No matter how much you want the Template: POV tag to stay on the article, it will not be staying on the article unless you make a strong case for it here on this talk page. Flyer22 (talk) 13:38, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

Note: Roshu Bangal (talk · contribs) replied on my talk page about this. He should have obviously responded here on this talk page instead. And with this edit, The Anome reverted Roshu Bangal. Flyer22 (talk) 03:00, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

Start of articles and its name

About this edit, yes and no (Update: clarification, this exact text needs not be in the lead, only in some form). Yes, thanks, it should not only be in the lead.

Pre WP:LEAD: "The lead should be able to stand alone as a concise overview. [..] The lead is the first part of the article most people read, and many only read the lead." and somewhere (I forget where), the guidelines say you should start with the article title, in bold (some leeway). The article's title isn't "Research concerning the effects of pornography".

Per WP:TITLE, I propose changing the title. Maybe "Disputed research into long term effects of effects of pornography". Or "Controversial research.." or something. If "long term" is missing, then the most immediate effect should stay in, and the only proven highly reliable result. Feel free to come up with a counter-proposal. comp.arch (talk) 17:34, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

I am correct about the lead, per what I stated in this and this edit. Read WP:Editorializing, WP:Lead sentence and WP:BOLDTITLE.

As for your proposal to retitle the article to any of the qualifiers you suggested above, or any other qualifiers you suggest, I'm against it. I already told you in the discussion you had with G S Palmer, "the article is titled Effects of pornography, not Proposed effects of pornography, or something similar; nor should it be. Pornography does come with effects, but it's the 'to what extent' and 'how much of it is medical' aspects that are being debated. [...] Internet sex addiction, pornography addiction, pornophobia and STDs in the porn industry are indeed all effects of pornography, as noted in the literature because people (mostly men) have cited them as effects. Of course, pornography affects people differently, but that doesn't negate that all of these aspects have been cited by reliable sources as effects of pornography. [...] An effect does not have to mean a medical effect. I am speaking of any effect of pornography, be it social, physical or medical (meaning psychological as well)." If you want the article moved, then start a WP:Requested moves discussion; I'll oppose, per what I've already stated. Flyer22 (talk) 02:37, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

I also add that "effect" doesn't always mean a proven effect. Flyer22 (talk) 02:41, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

"I also add that "effect" doesn't always mean a proven effect", but, the article on effects, should then start at least with the proven effects? The effects, for most (males, at least, is documented) sexual release. The effect isn't (for most, or nearly as many) that it leads them to "research". Say for [effects of Gravity], the effect is for "things to fall down" (for a common sense, description, not starting with the complicated, gravity bends spacetime (that is also true) or leads physicists to study gravity (that is only an indirect effect, and didn't happen until Newton, continuing to this day for a small population of the universe). That article starts with "Gravity or gravitation is a natural phenomenon by which all things attract one another" (compare to the bullshit Law of attraction (New Thought)) and "falling" is in the picture next to the lead.

Per WP:LEAD: "The lead should be able to stand alone as a concise overview", starting with e.g. "multiple outcomes [..] rape, domestic violence" is just WP:NPOV WP:BIAS in my view and unproven, when that is taken over the most likely outcome. Would you start Effects of movies or music or erotica or videogames, with leads to rape and violence? Or "made to entertain"? comp.arch (talk) 14:43, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

I don't at all see why the lead should start with this bit (I've already been over why); that is a poor WP:Lead sentence, even more so than the current lead sentence. You are using WP:BIAS incorrectly; that is a WP:Essay about systemic bias. And even if you mean WP:Neutral point of view#Bias in sources and/or WP:BIASED#Biased or opinionated sources, you are still wrong. Research on effects of pornography is mostly concerned with exactly what the second sentence of the lead stated: "potential influences on rape, domestic violence, sexual dysfunction, difficulties with sexual relationships, and child sexual abuse." That is clear by lower parts of the article as well. And that is why the lead is that way; it reflects the article's content. If the effects of movies mostly concerned potential influences on rape, domestic violence, sexual dysfunction, difficulties with sexual relationships, and child sexual abuse, then, yes, that lead should reflect that. The effects of movies is entirely differently than the effects of pornography, however.

That stated, since the lower part of the article begins with the topic of how pornography affects sexual function, and whether or not it affects sexual function in other ways, I have changed the lead so that it includes domestic violence, rape and child sexual abuse as the final listings, after "sexual dysfunction" and "difficulties with sexual relationships." I also tweaked it so that this is part of the lead sentence, and added "sexual function." This is seen here and here. Flyer22 (talk) 22:50, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

Your recent edits are a step in the right direction. The bit you object to and moved, and I thanked you for, I then summarized in the lead and you took it out of the lead. An article should be summarized in the lead. This bit, is probably the only reliable ("most", vs. other effects: "purported") "effect of pornography". If it isn't in the lead, the name of the article should be changed, or else a non-neutral banner template put in. You say "That is clear by lower parts", but while lower parts/main text, should be summarized in the lead, the article (and lead) should follow from the articles title (saying "effects", not "research") not the other way around. See: WP:DUE-violation "prominence of placement".

As an analogy: While, I can't find Effects of sugar or Effects of drugs (or similar titles), they should not start with "addiction" (then, tooth decay and then, sweet), or a chapter on it, they should start with the uncontroversial, something like "sugar activates the Sweetness taste buds" (sugar has a "Health effects"-section way down nr. 9). The closest, I found for drugs is: Recreational drug use starting with "Recreational drug use is the use of a drug (legal, controlled, or illegal) with the primary intention to alter the state of consciousness (through alteration of the central nervous system) in order to create positive emotions and feelings. [..] "high"." Then only in paragraph two: "Psychological disorders such as depression, trauma, social anxiety, and schizophrenia have also been claimed by some people".

Compulsion or addiction always requires some "feel good" or "high" first, for the possibility (of addiction)? comp.arch (talk) 10:01, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

For the last time, this bit does not belong in the lead. Yes, the lead is meant to summarize the article; I've already stated that. It's meant to summarize its most important points. "Summarize" does not mean "repeat." And the lead is usually not for summarizing minor parts of the article. The first bit you added to the lead is a minor part of the article (whether placed in the lead or lower), and is currently summarized in the lead by the words "including potential influences on sexual function and sexual dysfunction." This other bit you added to the lead, which I also reverted, was also a poor start to the lead, for reasons I've already mentioned. The current WP:Lead sentence is not great, but it is not a WP:POV violation of any sort (meaning not a WP:Undue weight violation either) that it begins by stating "Research concerning the effects of pornography is concerned with multiple outcomes, including potential influences on sexual function and sexual dysfunction, difficulties with sexual relationships, domestic violence, rape and child sexual abuse."

Your analogies are poor. I told you: Research on effects of pornography is mostly concerned with sexual function, sexual dysfunction, difficulties with sexual relationships, domestic violence, rape and child sexual abuse. So, of course, this Wikipedia article on the effects of pornography is mostly going to be about that and begin by noting that. The lead does not begin by talking about addiction; it works its way into talking about addiction. And it does that because addiction is a major aspect of discussion when it comes to the effects of pornography. The effects of pornography is first and foremost concerned with sexual function/sexual dysfunction; and addiction, as well as problematic Internet pornography viewing (which may or may not be addiction), are clearly a huge part of that. So it makes sense that the article would begin with this section.

There is not a lot of positive talk in the academic literature with regard to the effects of pornography; if there were, you would have a point when it comes to citing WP:Undue weight. At this point in time, you are citing Wikipedia's rules wrongly, and you have made no valid point about tagging this article with Template:POV. I am tired of repeating myself, and do not want to continue this discussion with you. I suggest you look for outside opinions on this matter via WP:Dispute resolution, since others watching this talk page are not yet weighing in on this discussion. I might point WP:Med to this discussion. This is a poor article, and it doesn't need more poor editing. Flyer22 (talk) 04:41, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

I agree, we seem to have reached an impasse. If the title of the article was "Research on effects on pornography", you would have a better point with "I told you: Research on effects of pornography is mostly concerned with sexual function", summarizing the most voluminous research. The title is different, and I'm also starting to repeat myself, the "most" reliable effect seems to trump research, that is unreliable or contradicting. See: "trivializes sexual child abuse" based on a "prison interview" (a sample size of 1) vs. "found that the number of reported cases of child sex abuse dropped markedly immediately after the ban on sexually explicit materials was lifted in 1989". Having "potential influences [..] difficulties with [..] rape and child sexual abuse" in the lead seems WP:WEASEL and biased, over the proven effect. "potential influences on sexual function" is just very vague, could it not mean something completely different than "porn just works as intended"(TM): "more" ejaculations on the day of watching porn. comp.arch (talk) 09:26, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

WP:MEDRS

Notification to newbies: according to WP:MEDRS primary sources are rejected by default. Do not claim medical facts based upon primary research. Tgeorgescu (talk) 19:25, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

@Tgeorgescu Then why do you allow Steele et al all on Pornography addiction - As for the DSM specifically considering "porn addiction" and rejecting it, that did not occur.

So let's address this - How can you justify deleting a peer-reviewed review which is now published in PubMed (Neuroscience of Internet Pornography Addiction: A Review and Update), while simultaneously allowing a review (Ley et al.) that is not published in PubMed? I request that your reinstate the section written about this review. --Gaborlewis (talk) 21:28, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

It is published by a predatory open access publishing, therefore it fails WP:MEDRS. Note that it isn't MedLine indexed. Tgeorgescu (talk) 21:32, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

@Tgeorgescu That's a lie. It's not a predatory journal. It's PuBmed indexed and you are trying you keep it out. Ley et al is not indexed anywhere, and you call it an "academic review". How does one appeal blatant gate-keeping? http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26393658 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gaborlewis (talk • contribs) 21:40, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

I have reverted a source from a predatory open access publishing, namely MDPI. It fails WP:MEDRS and it is an attempt to game the system. Source: Jeffrey Beall (18 February 2014), Chinese Publisher MDPI Added to List of Questionable Publishers, Scholarly Open Access: Critical analysis of scholarly open-access publishing. Tgeorgescu (talk) 21:53, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

Kirsten Weir claims in APA Monitor that it did occur. Does any source claim that it did not occur? Tgeorgescu (talk) 22:00, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

@Tgeorgescu Do you have a source that says that Behavioral Sciences is predatory? Link - http://www.mdpi.com/journal/behavsci You can't use this as an excuse. This paper is peer-reviewed, with neuroscientists as c0-authors, and is pub-med indexed. Ley et al isn't. Two of the authors come from this research team - https://www.uni-due.de/kognitionspsychologie/index_eng.shtml

Matthias Brand (PhD) and Christian Laier (PhD) are probably the world's foremost authorities in the neurospsychology of cybersex addiction, having published numerous studies directly on this subject. Dr. Brand is Department Head (Psychology-Cognition) at University of Duisburg-Essen, and has co-authored no less than 166 studies. Dr. Laier, is a recent graduate, and has already co-authored 16 papers that appear in PubMed, and more in publications that are not indexed in PubMed.

Dr. Hatch has a doctorate degree in psychology (PhD), is a former university professor with partial specialization in research methods.

Dr Hajela has a doctorate degree in medicine (MD), a Master of Public Health (MPH) from the Harvard University, and an undergraduate degree in physics. Dr Hajela is a past president of the Canadian Society of Addiction Medicine (CSAM), a member of the International Society of Addiction Medicine (ISAM), and is a Fellow of the American Society of Addiction Medicine (ASAM). Please note that Dr Hajela was the chair of the ASAM committee that developed the neuroscience-based medical definition of addiction. As such, Dr Hajela is among the world's leading experts in the neuroscience of addiction.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Gaborlewis (talk • contribs)

It's clear what you are doing.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Gaborlewis (talk • contribs)

with low publishing fees paid by authors or their institutions.

— http://www.mdpi.com/journal/behavsci

Quoted by Tgeorgescu (talk) 22:35, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

For more information see vanity press. Tgeorgescu (talk) 22:49, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

They have advanced degrees, some have professorships, and all they could reach is publishing the article as SFAs (self-financing authors)? Perhaps you should read the basic requirements mentioned at WP:SOURCES. Tgeorgescu (talk) 00:41, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

@ Tgeorgescu From the Wiki page on MDPI: It is considered a predatory open access publishing company publishing journals of dubious quality by Jeffrey Beall.[3] Following Beall's criticism of MDPI, the Open Access Scholarly Publishers Association (OASPA) conducted an investigation in April 2014 and concluded that MDPI continues to meet the OASPA Membership Criteria.[4]

You are are relying on a single blog post, by a single blogger to prevent the inclusion of a PubMed peer-reviewed paper. In opposition to your single 18-month old blog post is the Open Access Scholarly Publishers Association (OASPA), which has concluded that MDPI is not predatory and meets the OASPA Membership Criteria.

Evidence that issues put forth by a single blogger are resolved (excerpts from findings):

Investigations have encompassed review of internal correspondence at MDPI, detailed information on the handling of peer-review, decision making and reviewer reports, plus external comments, blogs and websites. Based on our findings we feel satisfied that MDPI continue to meet the OASPA Membership Criteria.

MDPI have been extremely cooperative throughout this process and have shared many documents and evidence of correspondence with the OASPA Membership Committee. We are grateful for their openness during this period.

It's clear that Tgeorgescu tried to find anything to prevent the inclusion of this review. This is old news, and it has been resolved. I have lodged a formal complaint against Tgeorgescu with Wikipedia. Gaborlewis (talk) 03:41, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

Summary of the problem

Here is a summary of the problem. I have no opinion on whether it passes WP:MEDRS, but it is certainly the learned opinion of an expert in addictions. Tgeorgescu (talk) 21:02, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

@Tgeorgescu You are citing a sex addiction article, That would be a different wiki page. Please stick to the subject at hand, which is pornography. You have yet to cite a reliable source that specifically states that the DSM5 formally reject "pornography addiction". Please limit your citations that that specific phrase. Please, no more blog posts - I want the APA stating that porn addiction was formally rejected.--Gaborlewis (talk) 21:35, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

You have the APA Monitor cited (the other APA, still a very important APA). Tgeorgescu (talk) 21:36, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

@Tgeorgescu I want the phrase "porn addiction". You cannot provide it. Sex addiction is not porn addiction - that's why it's a separate wiki page.Gaborlewis (talk) 21:45, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

"So when does it become an addiction?" That, of course, is a key question for researchers trying to understand pornography's dark side.

— Kirsten Weir, op. cit.

Quoted by Tgeorgescu (talk) 21:48, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

Tgeorgescu Still no citation. A true gate keeper.Gaborlewis (talk) 22:24, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

Generally the title of an article defines its subject. So, you may want to read its title in order to understand its subject. Tgeorgescu (talk) 22:29, 1 October 2015 (UTC)