Talk:NoFap

Why are opinions of journalists included in reception?

They are no authority on the subject and are there just to inflate that section.

--Caligula369 (talk) 22:30, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

Why not? Mainstream media coverage of a subject is always worth noting, whether the journalists are experts on the subject or not. Robofish (talk) 13:14, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

@Caligula369: If you remove WP:FRIND sources from the article, it will have to be deleted per WP:N. Tgeorgescu (talk) 13:58, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

Defamation suit

FYI: https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/ywa97m/nofap-founder-suing-a-neuroscientist-no-nut-november

--Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:55, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

Comparison to pornfree

@Susmuffin: The reference makes a direct comparison between /r/nofap and /r/pornfree. I've added another reference that compares the two. Jonpatterns (talk) 16:15, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

Pseudoscience category

According to WP:PARITY, Wikipedia does not discuss WP:FRINGE stuff without saying that it is fringe in big shinny letters. See also WP:LUNATICS. So, when most WP:RS discuss NoFap with either scepticism or scorn, Wikipedia has to reflect that. So, it is a big WP:NPOV problem if we leave out the information that at the present moment NoFap is not supported by mainstream science. And... superpowers? Isn't that like kids willing to be bitten by irradiated spiders in order to get the powers of Spider-Man? Tgeorgescu (talk) 14:21, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

Quoting myself. According to WP:PSCI we have to label it as pseudoscience. Local WP:CONSENSUS cannot override site-wide policy.

TL;DR VERSION YBOP, TGPE, and nofap are founded on the views of two people who are considered pariahs within the sex and relationship research and clinical communities. They present themselves as experts but aren’t. There’s no empirical research evidence to support any of the claims made by YBOP and TGPE. All the claims about negative effects of internet porn use can be better accounted for by other explanations. Watching internet porn (hopefully ethically produced!) and masturbating are not problematic for the vast majority of people. And for those people who do have a problem with internet porn, it’s almost always a sign of some other underlying problem (shame, anxiety, fear of rejection, relationship problems, boredom, low self-esteem, lack of good sex education, etc.). Addressing those underlying problems should be people’s focus, not abstaining from masturbation to internet porn. Quitting internet porn and masturbating is not the magic bullet to an improved life.

— Dr. Jason Winters

Quoted by Tgeorgescu (talk) 04:06, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

Do you think the mention of the pseudoscientific character of the movement's beliefs should not be added to the introduction section? IMO, it's quite fundamental to the cult's very existence. The critique later in the article is a bit marred with the ideological neoliberal agenda (multiple quotations either include the word "sad" (favourited by the LGBT) or talk about misogyny). I believe, a short clear summation of the objectively anti-scientific convictions would be helpful and unbiased.--Adûnâi (talk) 03:32, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

@Adûnâi: Whatever we write inside Wikipedia articles has to be WP:Verifiable in WP:RS. ... and, according to Project Know, almost 50% of NoFappers never had sex. Are these people supposed to refrain from masturbation? Do they get a girlfriend allotted in the process, or should they behave for the rest of their life as if they were castrated? Is this some sort of sadistic joke? Because Let's behave as eunuchs and we'll get superpowers is a sadistic joke. Tgeorgescu (talk) 04:47, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I fail to follow your point. How is their effective "incel" (?) status relevant? All I'm suggesting is underlying the pseudoscientific nature of their fundamental beliefs in the article lead - because later on, the more detailed quotations might mar the issue with bias. (And however relevant it is - I oppose nofap without being a supporter of LGBT rights, a really weird combination, I admit, because in America, if you're against nofap, you must be a liberal, the same with atheism positively correlating with LGBT.)

If you need examples - "I do think their ideas are simplistic, naive and promote a sad, reductionistic and distorted view of male sexuality and masculinity" by David J. Ley who seems to be a vitriolic liberal from his quotations, and I again posit that it might draw the attention of the reader away from the legitimate, ideology-free critique of the soundness of the fundamentals of nofap beliefs.--Adûnâi (talk) 07:13, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

Yup, Wikipedia serves an ideology, but it isn't liberalism or conservatism, it is the academic mainstream, see WP:ABIAS and WP:MAINSTREAM. From the conservative side, James Dobson does not condemn masturbation, but he is anti-porn. Tgeorgescu (talk) 20:29, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

This segment is confusing, reword?

"but also radical feminist critiques of pornography, as well as suggesting that members of NoFap frequently utilized and redeployed familiar hegemonic masculine discourses (e.g. men as dominant seekers of pleasure and women as the ‘natural’ suppliers of this pleasure), in turn reproducing common sense sexual expectations of gendered dominance and submission"

Specifically "common sense sexual expectations of gendered dominance and submission". Adding an example to this section would be beneficial i believe. --Disoff (talk) 16:41, 28 March 2020 (UTC)