Talk:Pornography addiction

More Citation Needed of Skepticism

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

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

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

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

No research done claim

After a little searching I found several studies linked here [1]. I think that whether these are really 'scientific' or 'valid' studies is a matter for discussion but that SOME research has been done should be mentioned. The connections between media depictions and violence and pornography and crime or psychological dysfunction is a popular and controversial area of research in social science. Antonrojo 02:44, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

I could not find anything for this claim either

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

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

Merge with Sexual addiction ?

Merge with Sexual addiction, Cybersex???

Merge -- I think it should be

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

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

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

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

Dobson is no expert on anything except fundamentalist opportunism

I think that the article needs to be thoroughly overhauled, and the references to fascist theocratic demagogues like James Dobson put in their appropriate context: that of a powerful, politically-connected opportunist cashing in on a real social problem to promote his own reactionary, fundamentalist agenda in a most insidious and intimate way.

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

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

---

Huh?

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

Merge Sexual addiction with Pornography addiction?

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

Saaraleigh 19:48, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

yes that's a thought...

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

you know what I say?

--------                  --------
--------                  --------
        __________________

yes.. .that's right!

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I think the section on Dobson should be removed.

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

Dobson, "opponents" out

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

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

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

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

Yeah, crazy people do get PhDs sometimes. Licensed or not, the man it absolutely lunatic fringe. Here's his advice for "preventing homosexuality":

"Meanwhile, the boy's father has to do his part. He needs to mirror and affirm his son's maleness. He can play rough-and-tumble games with his son, in ways that are decidedly different from the games he would play with a little girl. He can help his son learn to throw and catch a ball. He can teach him to pound a square wooden peg into a square hole in a pegboard. He can even take his son with him into the shower, where the boy cannot help but notice that Dad has a penis, just like his, only bigger."[2]

Emphasis mine. Extremist sources can only be used in articles about themselves, and then only very carefully. — coelacan — 22:24, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

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

As is yours. But it doesn't matter what either of our POVs are. Reliability of sources can and must be judged regardless. Let's look at the sources here.

"Life on the Edge", ISBN 0-8499-0927-9, is from W Publishing Group,[3] an imprint of Thomas Nelson (publisher), a conservative Christian publisher. They publish according to ideological criteria, but there's no indication that they have any informed oversight into scientific claims put forth by Dobson. This work by Dobson doesn't appear to have been published in any journals, reputable or not. There's no indication that it's been peer-reviewed. In short, there's no indication that this is anything but pseudoscience, and there's no reliable sourcing for these claims.

"Love Must Be Tough", ISBN 1-59052-355-5, is published by Multnomah Publishers,[4] a conservative Evangelical Christian publisher. Again, they print books by ideological scope, and there's no sign that they have scientific oversight over the claims being put forth here. Again, this has not been published in a peer-reviewed journal. No indication of anything except pseudoscience. These are not reliable sources. They cannot be used to cite this article. I'm taking them out.[5] — coelacan — 21:29, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

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

Nope, but the question is whether these sources are based on scientific research. If the answer is no, we have to ask why prominent space in this article is being given to one guy's non-scientific belief on the matter? Mdwh 05:14, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Prove that it is not based on science and we can discuss that. In the meantime, assuming that this is "one guy's non-scientific belief" is just that: an assumption. Jinxmchue 05:17, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Also if you do wish to put it in, please don't remove the merge tag - I have started the discussion already in talk, see my comment above. Mdwh 05:19, 11 March 2007 (UTC) If you are putting

Ah. I was expecting an actual separate discussion with its own header. Perhaps that should be done to avoid further confusion. (And it should be done on the talk page for Dobson's article as that is where the link in the merge box goes to.) Jinxmchue 06:51, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

I've put a note in the Dobson's article now, letting people know of this discussion. Mdwh 15:53, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

I see that the Dobson material is still gone. Does this mean the matter is settled to everyone's satisfaction? Jamiem 15:31, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Not really, but I'm tired of fighting with OWNers. Jinxmchue 15:52, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

That's the pissiest version of WP:CONS ("Consensus does not mean that everyone agrees with the outcome; instead, it means that everyone agrees to abide by the outcome.") that I've seen, but hey, I'll take it. - Thespian 17:11, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

the burden of peer review

(Copied from above to avoid further indenting): What is your proof of any of that? Provide it and you will justify your removal of the material. Jinxmchue 14:25, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

You've got it backwards. But while we're here I happen to know a curious aside about Thomas Nelson Publishing that I'd like to share... the CEO of Thomas Nelson says that the only "editorial standards" are that authors must assent to the Nicene Creed and Philippians 4:8.[6] Wow! Doesn't that speak volumes? Anyway, you've got it backwards. Maybe you're not familiar with the peer review process, but a scientific claim is not reliably sourced unless it has been printed in a peer-reviewed scientific journal. It's up to you to show that Dobson's supposed findings here have been subjected to the peer review process of some reliable journal. If that can't be demonstrated, then there's no reason to believe that he's done anything but simply jot down his shower musings and send them off to his publishers. — coelacan — 04:23, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

way too many external links

Most of the external links were not reliable sources. Here are the ones I removed:[7] That's a span of eight diffs, each one has an edit summary relating to the particular reason for that removal, for anyone who's wondering. — coelacan — 17:13, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

I greatly disagree with many of your removals. For example, there is nothing in WP:EL against links to internet ministries. Also, Dobson is an authority and a reliable source as he has a doctorate in psychology. It seems to me that you are removing these things based on your personal distaste for who and what they represent. Jinxmchue 20:06, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Internet ministries are all self-published sources without editorial oversight, and thus not reliable sources per WP:RS. So no internet ministries, sorry. And I've addressed Dobson in the above section. — coelacan — 22:27, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Whew! Just got rid of 19KB of off-topic stuff (anything not discussing alteration to the article).[8] Now I'm going to archive for length. — coelacan — 23:39, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Done, and a diff: the difference between this page and the archive is only what remains here.[9] — coelacan — 23:58, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

I think you are misusing WP:RS for this section. See WP:EL (section 3) for more information. Jinxmchue 17:03, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

All three of these sites[10] are run by Pure Community Ministries. The purpose of them is to convert people to Christianity ("We believe this vision is best carried out through authentic fellowship with Jesus Christ and His people"[11]) and bring those who are already Christians around to the "right" way of thinking ("[We] don't allow users to debate the morality of porn"[12]).

Let's look at WP:EL's "What should be linked", in full:

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

Now let's look at WP:EL's "Links normally to be avoided". This one is longer, so I'll just copy the ones that apply here:

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

So I'm taking the links down.[13] There may be problems with the other external links, but these definitely have to go. — coelacan — 19:39, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Added Some Science Links, Commentia on NPOV

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

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

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

Do Not Link to Anti-Porn Crusaders & 'We Can Help You!' Sites

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

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

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

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

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

Pretty easy to evaluate this one. Again, the third criterion from WP:EL's "What should be linked" is the one you're shooting for:

3. Sites that contain neutral and accurate material that cannot be integrated into the Wikipedia article due to copyright issues, amount of detail (such as professional athlete statistics, movie or television credits, interview transcripts, or online textbooks) or other reasons.

• Is this site neutral? No. It is a Christian ministry for the purpose of converting people to believe in Jesus. Does it have accurate material? Let's look at http://xxxchurch.com/07/gethelp/men.php ... "Fact #1 Women are beautiful because that's the way God made them." And what is the suggested means of self-help? Answer: "confess your sins".

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

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

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

1. Any site that does not provide a unique resource beyond what the article would contain if it became a Featured article. - N/A: provides a unique resource
2. Any site that misleads the reader by use of factually inaccurate material or unverifiable research. See Wikipedia:Attribution#Reliable sources. - N/A: does not mislead
3. Links mainly intended to promote a website. - N/A: not a promotional link
4. Links to sites that primarily exist to sell products or services. For example, instead of linking to a commercial bookstore site, use the "ISBN" linking format, giving readers an opportunity to search a wide variety of free and non-free book sources. - N/A: does not exist solely to sell anything
5. Links to sites with objectionable amounts of advertising. - N/A: not much advertising
6. Links to sites that require payment or registration to view the relevant content. - N/A: no payment or registration needed
7. Sites that are inaccessible to a substantial number of users, such as sites that only work with a specific browser. - N/A: anyone can view it
8. Direct links to documents that require external applications (such as Flash or Java) to view the relevant content, unless the article is about such rich media. If you do link to such material make a note of what application is required. - N/A: no special apps needed
9. Links to search engine and aggregated results pages. - N/A: not a search engine
10. Links to social networking sites (such as MySpace), discussion forums or USENET. - N/A: not an SNS, forum or USENET
11. Links to blogs and personal web pages, except those written by a recognized authority. - N/A: not a blog or personal web page
12. Links to open wikis, except those with a substantial history of stability and a substantial number of editors. - N/A: not an open wiki
13. Sites that are only indirectly related to the article's subject: the link should be directly related to the subject of the article. A general site that has information about a variety of subjects should usually not be linked to from an article on a more specific subject. Similarly, a website on a specific subject should usually not be linked to an article about a general subject. If a section of a general website is devoted to the subject of the article, and meets the other criteria for linking, then that part of the site could be deep-linked. - N/A: directly related to the article

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

Yes, let's look at WP:EL's "links to be avoided". Three are pertinent:

1. Any site that does not provide a unique resource beyond what the article would contain if it became a Featured article.

• I have a hard time seeing what exactly you think the unique resource is here. I see a video of a woman in a rabbit suit (not a unique sight) and the opportunity to confess my sins to Jesus (not a unique opportunity).

2. Any site that misleads the reader by use of factually inaccurate material or unverifiable research. See Wikipedia:Attribution#Reliable sources.

• I see at least one possible instance of this and one definite case. The only ostensibly informational content to be found on this site are these "Pornography Industry Statistics", but these are completely uncited and we have no indication of where they came from. We would certainly not use that link to directly cite any supposed factual claim in an article, so they're not "reliable sources" by Wikipedia's standards. They may be true, but they may be inaccurate and misleading, and without any source, they're unverifiable. There is another part of the site that is definitely misleading. The parents' section plays a segment of video from Perversion for Profit, with no disclaimer or even a hint of irony. The segment ends with that stellar quote: "This moral decay weakens our resistance to the onslaught of the Communist masters of deceit." We can only presume that XXXchurch are seriously trying to link pornography to Communism.

4. Links to sites that primarily exist to sell products or services. For example, instead of linking to a commercial bookstore site, use the "ISBN" linking format, giving readers an opportunity to search a wide variety of free and non-free book sources.

• This is the nail in the coffin. XXXchurch's primary content is commercial. After the media-rich intro screen, retail sales are literally the very next thing the reader is presented with. Go to their website, click on the first link at the top left, "Get Help". This brings up a submenu; click on the first link, "Facts". This takes you to this page, where the first thing they tell you is to sign up with Pure Online, and the second thing they tell you is to sign up with The X3 Help at Home Program. X3 Help at Home only costs $1000 for singles or $2000 for couples. It's hard to say this isn't about money. Pure Online is a series of video lectures, costing from $180 to $495. The people giving the lectures include Craig Gross, Jason Harper, and Jake Larson, each of whom is affiliated with either XXXchurch or Fireproof Ministries (the parent group of XXXchurch). I hear the sound of kickbacks.

You're correct that the list of things that should be linked to is not an exhaustive list. However, that means you've got to make a case for linking to something else. Remember, "Links should be kept to a minimum." What does your link offer besides an empty wallet and a religious revival experience? — coelacan — 01:06, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

definition

under the heading "general information" I am changing it from "pornography addiction is defined as" to "could be defined as" due to the fact that was explained at the beginning of the article. That pornography addiction is not a recognised psychological disorder. I have little doubt personally that it exists, how common I don't know, but you can't say it is defined as anything unless an accepted medical journal defines it. Colin 8 06:16, 19 April 2007 (UTC) I figure it doesn't need the citation tag anymore since its all theoretical now.Colin 8 06:20, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree with your reasoning, but I think it's still preferable to seek a citation for someone who's attempting to define it as such. But, I could be off-track there. If someone wants to remove again that cite template I've restored, I won't press the issue. It is fairly nebulous. — coelacan — 15:00, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Not sure about the proper phrasing, but I'm addicted to online porn and it really sucks. It's just as strong as addiction to tobbaco to me. You might not believe me but I'm sure of this. Perhaps it's "compulsion" because chemistry is not involved. Whatever, I'm addicted. --OnlinePornAddict 01:49, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Removal of the most of the Pornagraphy Addiction skeptics

I removed the second paragraph because it was actually a paragraph depicting an argument against skeptics.

word for word reverts??

See also: Talk:Sexual_addiction § word for word reverts??

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

Viability of diagnosis

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Why the Ted Bundy anecdote?

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

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

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

Cut a line to talk page for discussion.

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

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

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

Schneider - content and ref cut to here

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

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

References

Various problems with article...

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

Diagnosis as an addiction > Dispute

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

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

Proposed stages of pornography addiction

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

So wp:be bold - it certainly needs much work to be a good article. I've already applied the editorial hatchet... it needs much more work.

"argumentative" - since it is an article about the dispute over whether or not there is any such thing, that makes sense.

"disgused" - I don't think it is disguised.

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

Large copyvio cut

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

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

christianet.com as a wp:RS

" "Evangelicals Are Addicted To Porn". ChristiaNet.com. Retrieved 2007-06-06.

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

Proposed Link to Croga.org

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

I see how this site can help people. I see how having it listed in WP will generate traffic for the site. But wp:NOT a list of links, not the yellow pages. I there is useful content related to the issue of whether or not there is such a thing as pornography addiction, perhaps an interested editor will add content to the article, and cite it as a source.

Possible wp:RS. No hits on google news, no hits on google scholar, book: "Sexual Deviance: Theory, Assessment, and Treatment" By D. Richard Laws, William T. O'Donohue. There were 2 other book hits but I don't have easy access to them to see if there seems to be notability for the site as providing valid information.- Sinneed 02:35, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

"Also, this article seems biased toward the view that this is not a disorder and has nothing concerning its treatment."

wp:SOFIXIT Adding spurious sites to the article won't accomplish that.- Sinneed 02:09, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

I will argue that if we need this as an EL:

• "Croga.org provides free, anonymous self-help resources for people who are worried about downloading and using" "child pornography"

Is more appropriate... but I oppose, just to be clear.

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

LDS site being used as an RS on pornography addiction

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

Dead link, promo link, new promo link

I removed a dead link, and 2 others. All 3 have been restored. wp:EL - I see no need for the 2 live links, and the dead link certainly needs to go. I'll remove these later today unless there is some reason they belong.- Sinneed 20:14, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

As a gesture toward compromise (I don't think either belong), I think it might be good to leave the pro and anti sites in. I am killing the dead link, in keeping with wp:EL. If an interested editor has a live link, perhaps it should be included, no idea. - Sinneed 20:24, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Dead link I killed:

• Dead link to http://www.freespeechcoalition.com/dan_linz.htm

- Sinneed 20:27, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

made edit in proposed stages of pornography addiction

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

Zero NPOV in this article

The neutrality of this article is non existent, and it reads more like a damning christian religious self help flyer. Robvanvee 10:48, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

Basically, you don't like it. Please be more specific about what needs to change or remove the tags. --65.28.71.204 (talk) 21:22, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

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

I'll go through the contested material tomorrow and thereafter remove the tags.Robvanvee 23:04, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

False claims by Chrislyte

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

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

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

— DSM-5, pp. 797-798

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

— Kirsten Weir, Is pornography addictive?

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

New research invalidates Ley et al claims about porn use causing ED

I removed the following sentence:

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

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

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

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

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

Ley et al misrepresent data

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

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

Ley et al use this paragraph to justify 0.5% -

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Questionable sources (MEDRS template)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Response to third opinion request:

If some aspect of WP or a WP article is deficient we should not use that as a reason for further substandard entries. That said, within an individual article we should have some parity. This Prause source [14] is not a review and should either be removed along with the source in question or both sources should be allowed with an inline attribution or tag indicating that they are not MEDRS compliant. — Keithbob • Talk • 16:12, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

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

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

I'm referring to the one that Keithbob cited. Flyer22 (talk) 16:49, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

Yes good point, its a literature review but not a research review. What is the (primary?) source that is the original source of contention here?-- — Keithbob • Talk • 16:59, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

The journal the first Prause article is in is not even MEDLINE indexed and so raises questions about its quality. Are other journals in this area MEDLINE indexed? What is the impact factor? Are the findings of this source in line with higher quality sources? Zad68 03:25, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

Video attached to this article is misleading

The first video, by Prause, contains misleading statements to the press based on her primary research that has been heavily critiqued: "‘High desire’, or ‘merely’ an addiction? A response to Steele et al." http://www.socioaffectiveneuroscipsychol.net/index.php/snp/article/view/23833/32589

Just as concerning, this entire TV interview with Prause relies on a finding from her study that *contradicts her statements to the press*. I've transcribed that portion:

"Reporter: "They were shown various erotic images, and their brain activity monitored."

Prause: "If you think sexual problems are an addiction, we would have expected to see an enhanced response, maybe, to those sexual images. If you think it's a problem of impulsivity, we would have expected to see decreased responses to those sexual images. And the fact that we didn't see any of those relationships suggests that there's not great support for looking at these problem sexual behaviors as an addiction."

The written story under the TV window has a section on the UCLA press release that says essentially the same thing:

"If they indeed suffer from hypersexuality, or sexual addiction, their brain response to visual sexual stimuli could be expected to be higher, in much the same way that the brains of cocaine addicts have been shown to react to images of the drug in other studies,' a UCLA press release on the study explained."

And yet, that did not happen."

But it did happen! The study DID show a higher amplitude P300 for the erotic images, compared to the other images. So what Prause says in the video doesn't match her study results.

I am removing it. Please don't put it up again without addressing these concerns.Chrislyte (talk) 18:22, 1 August 2014 (UTC)Chrislyte

Here's the relevant statement from Prause's study on subjects who had answered an ad about their problematic internet porn use:

"Also, the P300 mean amplitude for the pleasant_sexual condition was more positive than the unpleasant and pleasant_non-sexual conditions."Chrislyte (talk) 18:50, 1 August 2014 (UTC)Chrislyte

Dr. Hilton is an anti-pornography crusader. For all I know he could very well be a biased hack. Tgeorgescu (talk) 17:05, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

Adding video gives large amount of additional weight to that area of the article. Unless the source(s) the video is discussing or illustrating are top quality MEDRS compliant sources and they represent a significant portion of content already in the article, I would not recommend including a video as it will create undue weight.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 16:34, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

Ok, then both videos have to be deleted. It would be a violation of WP:NPOV to keep only one of them. Tgeorgescu (talk) 16:37, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

Few credible references, links, or research

The information in this article lacks credibility. I'm researching this because I think I might have a pornography addiction and there's no reason for me to believe that pornography addiction is a problem. Some of the reference links lead to articles that have nothing to do with what it's referenced to. For example:

"Pornography addiction is a conceptual model assessing behavioral addiction characterized by compulsive, repeated use of pornographic material until it causes serious negative consequences to one's physical, mental, social, or financial well-being"

The references to this first sentence trace back to anxiety disorders. There's no evidence anywhere that this sentence is true. Some of the research is real and traceable. However some of the claims in this article are blunt, belligerent, and completely false.

In fact, much of the research on the Internet leads me to believe that people are writing articles on porn addiction with no credible research, reference, or education. It seems to me like females are writing this information to deter males from viewing pornography. Unless I'm in a relationship or experiencing criminal urges, there's no real reason to seek psychological help. This article needs more research on porn addicts themselves (quotes, statistics, etc.), and information on addiction centers that treat porn addicts.

People who are writing false information/articles are confusing me on what I really need to do. I'd like to read credible information so I can make a justifiable decision as to whether or not I need a therapist. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.54.45.135 (talk) 04:09, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

That's true: there is no medical consensus about this issue, so opinions are divided. It does not appear in DSM-5 which flatly rejects sex addiction and internet use addiction (including porn use) for lack of peer-reviewed evidence. It does not mean that it is proven it does not exist, but it isn't proven that it exists. Tgeorgescu (talk) 16:04, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

The APA isn't equipped to identify new disease states. Their diagnostic models are invalid (per the US govt, specifically the NIMH director) anyway and IMO their diagnostic classifications of addictions in particular are completely retarded, simply due to their characterization of addictions as dependence - that's literally wrong by definition and it implies that compulsion, addiction, and dependence are all the same thing. Their models aren't based upon any scientific evidence though, so it's not really surprising that they'd do that. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 09:23, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

Well, APA cannot jump to the science from one century later, they have to do with what is presently known. Note that there isn't a contradiction between DSM being a reliable diagnostic tool and seeking to develop new diagnostic insights. I think the state of psychiatry could be compared to the state of cancer research: scientists know a lot, but they are far from knowing all they wished they know. Simply because psychiatry and cancer are very difficult subjects spectacular progress is slow or absent. Tgeorgescu (talk) 18:29, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

In the past normal behaviors like masturbation and homosexuality have been pathologized, so APA is cautious in respect to pathologizing new behaviors. It is not only a scientific issue, it is a political issue too, because people could be stigmatized or medically repressed because they have different sexual preferences than other people (just think of all devices invented in order to "cure" masturbation). Tgeorgescu (talk) 18:35, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

17% above standard deviation treated as research result

The article currently says: "One study of a convenience sample of 9,265 people found that 1% of Internet users are clearly addicted to cybersex and 17% of users meet criteria for problematic sexual compulsivity, meaning they score above one standard deviation of the mean on the Kalichman Sexual Compulsivity Scale."

This is nonsense -- under any normal distribution, roughly 16% of cases are above one standard deviation from the mean, so on this basis one would find that roughly 16% of all people are problematic with respect to any given quantity, from calorie intake to height. If this is indeed a correct summary of the source (I couldn't find it online), then I would expect that there are other sources criticizing this absurdity, and they should be cited, too, or perhaps preferably the nonsensical statement and its source should be deleted. Joriki (talk) 07:31, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

What is "addiction model"?

I thought it was a WP:WEASEL-term.. [If PA is actually an addiction, why is that just not said?] Looking up in Wikipedia, ranked first I found, Television addiction..

Eventually I found Disease model of addiction. Is that is what is meant? Linking to it might make this article even worse, as porn or porn use is not considered a "disease" (medically). Neither is it an accepted "addiction" (medically; rejected for the recently updated DSM-5).

The name of this article might be a WP:COMMONNAME, as people throw this term around and even "treat" for it. Maybe it will eventually get recognized (or not) as a genuine addiction. Until it does, it is being linked to, even put under the heading of "Effects" in Template:Pornography, see Template talk:Pornography for my attempts, to get it (and others, even more tenuous stuff thereunder)) moved, say under "Related" as I consider the template otherwise WP:BIASed as it is. comp.arch (talk) 14:41, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

Predatory open access publishing

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. Tgeorgescu (talk) 21:30, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

Tgeorgescu Pubmed listed, peer-reviewed paper, with several neuroscientists has been blocked by user Tgeorgescu. On the other hand Ley et al, which is not on PubMed or Medline and was published in a journal that was on hiatus for 6 years before publishing Ley et al, is allowed. Gatekeeper wins. Truth loses. Nice job Gaborlewis (talk) 22:30, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

Evidence for being predatory:

with low publishing fees paid by authors or their institutions.

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

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) 22:43, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

For more info see vanity press. Tgeorgescu (talk) 22:46, 1 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.Gaborlewis (talk) 03:37, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

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 you 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 with Wikipedia. Gaborlewis (talk) 03:28, 2 October 2015 (UTC)