Talk:NoFap/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

This article is biased

The article seems to have evidence on non supporters of nofap, but falls short on nofap supporters 41.186.78.74 (talk) 04:21, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

You would be right only if the following were abolished: WP:FRINGE, WP:MEDRS; WP:LUNATICS; WP:CHOPSY; WP:GOODBIAS; WP:DUE, WP:PSCI and WP:FALSEBALANCE; WP:ARBPS and WP:ARBCAM. Since this hasn't happened, you're wrong, completely wrong.

Yes of course I am. Applying our policies and guidelines on sources is not censoring. Our articles are based on reliable sources, almost always mainstream sources except where there is a significant non-mainstream view. Doug Weller talk 15:04, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

If you want "proof", just count the claims of conspiracy from https://www.reddit.com/r/NoFap/comments/u34ltr/the_double_standards_are_insane/ They basically claim that the articles cited herein are paid by the V.I.L.E. porn industry, and that the tiny world elite is robbing men of their wealth and freedom, mainly through not teaching them that semen retention boosts health and energy (esotericism). tgeorgescu (talk) 13:43, 17 April 2022 (UTC)

Extremely biased how about including ted talks and the studies they published. Also why not list famous people who are no nofap steeve jobs elon musk and jordan peterson for ex. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 179.6.109.32 (talk) 18:28, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HNMIwiFNp-8

ustJ

naexample 179.6.109.32 (talk) 18:32, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

According to WP:RULES, especially WP:PSCI and WP:FRINGE, Wikipedia cannot have what you call an "unbiased" article about NoFap. Wikipedia is heavily based upon mainstream science, and mainstream science, by and large, rejects NoFap (which is basically self-treatment of a purported mental disorder based upon self-diagnosis).

People cannot be blamed for seeking an easy solution while they lack a sex partner. Peterson is gullible enough to think that married people do not masturbate to porn. Which is patently false.

Your complaints aren't new. I heard them already at Talk:Morgellons, Talk:Electromagnetic hypersensitivity, Talk:Intelligent design, and Talk:Creation science.

Asking Wikipedia to endorse NoFap is like asking the Pope to preach Mormonism: you have lost that fight by default.

The myth persists, despite scientific proof to the contrary, that masturbation is physically harmful. Neither is there evidence that masturbation is immature activity; it is common among adults deprived of sociosexual opportunities.

— Britannica

To provide a bit of context: You are not the first person who comes to the Talk page of an article about a pseudoscientific idea or about a proponent of pseudoscience and writes things like "this violates NPOV", "the article should say less about what scientists say about it and more about what <X> themselves say". This happens every day, at one pseudoscience article or another. It is caused by the fact that many pseudoscientists have successfully given the public the wrong impression that their ideas are a valid part of science. The public then sees that Wikipedia articles are in conflict with that perception and thinks that changing the Wikipedia article is easier than changing their own perception. The attitude of those editors is always the same: "I know better than all the other editors here. I just need to convince them." The methods are always from the same set: *edit-war, *personal attacks, *sealioning, *wikilawyering, *soapboxing (walls of text), *misinformation from and links to questionable websites, *attempts at logically deriving the truth of their own beliefs from platitudes and from wrong assumptions about science. *I probably left out a few. The result is always the same: *it will not happen. The reason is that Wikipedia is based on reliable sources, and pseudoscientific sources are not reliable sources. *An additional result that occurs if the editor in question does not back off in time is that the editor is blocked. You have already exhibited the attitude and some of the methods we know so well. Doug Weller's comment on your user talk page "Your fate is in your own hands" refers to the expected result. --Hob Gadling (talk) 07:35, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

Giving the rants of an internet forum equal validity with the findings of mainstream science is itself an utterly biased choice—a choice that isn't ours. And that's what NoFap is: a forum crammed with conspiracy rants, pseudoscientific claims, and quackery-promoting grifters. Self-appointed reboot coaches are making their clients become suicidal. To become a coach you don't need to study anything, you need no diploma, you don't need to pass any exams.

I'm not even saying that porn addiction does not exist; I say that evidence that it exists is lacking. And you don't have to take my word for it, just read DSM-5-TR. As they say in archeology, absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. The comparison with archaeology is like multiple teams of archeologists dig the same place for a hundred years and come empty-handed. If porn addiction afflicted a substantial chunk of the population, evidence of it should have been plenty by 2020. People ranting upon the internet will tell you that there is good evidence for it, but mainstream psychiatry gives them the lie. A holy alliance of psychotics, religious fanatics and grifters are promoting the concept of porn addiction and their purported cure for it. Of course, I don't diagnose such people I am going by WP:RS and other reports from experts which aren't technically WP:RS. tgeorgescu (talk) 17:55, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

Porn addicts say that porn addiction is real.

Many therapists say that porn addiction is real.

Many scientists say that porn addiction is real.

The public largely thinks that porn addiction is real.

The vast preponderance of porn research supports that porn addiction is real.

— NoFap official tweet

I don't know upon which planet they live, but the American Psychiatric Association just gave the lie to their tweet in March 2022 (it's in DSM-5-TR). If I remember well from a systematic review I quoted earlier, most papers about porn either do not have a collection of empirical data, or they do not have a responsible statistical processing of the empirical data. Garbage in, garbage out. So The vast preponderance of porn research is just garbage. APA did not heed to such garbage. If you publish at an outlet which ever made it to Beall's list, APA won't even consider your paper. Same as Wikipedia, they are WP:NOTDUMB.

Research from countries wherein the government dictates the morality, academic integrity bows down to clergy or political power, and there is no freedom of speech is not taken seriously.

Why don't nofappers lambast Britannica and Larousse? Because those encyclopedias do not have talk pages and don't give a fart about being criticized on Twitter. tgeorgescu (talk) 13:17, 19 May 2022 (UTC)

The Effects of pornography page is much more balanced/neutral, so the lede of the NoFap article is clearly biased. The topic on Effects of pornography#Delay discounting is what most intrigues me, but it is based on a single source. −Arthurfragoso (talk) 16:24, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

That's a WP:MEDRS violation. Wikipedia simply does not allow an "unbiased" article upon NoFap. This is enshrined in WP:PAG.

The WP:ONUS is upon you to explain why self-treatment of a purported mental disorder based upon self-diagnosis does not fall within the purview of WP:PSCI.

It might be so that porn OCD or porn CSBD is a real problem, but the solution to this problem aren't self-appointed reboot coaches. The solution is treatment from a licensed psychiatrist. tgeorgescu (talk) 21:49, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

First, I do not claim that porn or masturbation do good or bad, the pleasure/good side is obvious, but what I say is there are reason to think it could or may do bad, and there is the causation direction that could be either way. (mental health problem leading to susceptibility of porn addiction, or a porn addiction that causes other mental impairment, or both direction?)

The problem of discussing a community is because there are many people making different claims that some may agree and others not, it becomes a broken clock that get a few things right by chance from time to time. And I think this is what is bothering me, maybe just the way it was worded. In the lede it says "The group's views" being incorrect, and I think there is a few things that could be correct in what they say.

I just read the article on the survey of /r/NoFap used in the lede, and it mentions that atheist were 70% of the pool, but the ones with stronger will to abstain were the religious part of the group (30%), I would guess then that the minority would be more vocal and skew what the majority thinks. And the religion guilt is part of the motivation for them, and it seems to be used to discredit everyone, maybe this could be more clearly worded.

The last article mentioned in the lede is quite interesting. (Watson 2020) It claims to "refute" NoFap using a couple of sources, aside from the religion shame, it cite this article citing sources saying that depression and anxiety precedes porn use, suggesting this would be the causal direction. Watson2020 also cites Wery2016: "This study also emphasized the elevated psychiatric comorbidity rate in patients who nonetheless consulted the treatment center regarding their sexual addiction. This further calls for paying attention to the fact that these conditions can often be conceptualized as the consequences of pre-existing psychiatric disorders."

I do agree with you on this having to be treated with a psychiatrist. I'm just unsure if the sources invalidate everything they claim, or if there are things that still need more research. —Arthurfragoso (talk) 02:29, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

what I say is there are reason to think it could or may do bad It does not matter what you say. If you want your opinion in the article, you need reliable sources for it. If you don't want that, if you are just using this as a forum, then you are in the wrong place because Wikipedia Talk pages are for improving the article. --Hob Gadling (talk) 04:41, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

My take has been expressed at [1]. What I have learned since then? That a diagnosis of porn addiction is highly unlikely. Note that I am not opposed to a diagnosis of porn OCD, or CSBD.

And for people who do not like my edits, anyone can fill a complaint against me at WP:AE. Please read WP:GOODBIAS before doing so. tgeorgescu (talk) 00:50, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

References

what is Wikipedia for?

Wikipedia is not here to establish a scientific consensus, or to decide what is pseudoscience or not. It is here to use referenced links to acceptable works that might say these things. Not everything that is pseudoscience or irrational gets that mentioned in the articles, whether it's because it's original research, or the topic is privileged. 142.163.194.243 (talk) 01:21, 23 July 2022 (UTC)

TLDR: Our article seems like heavy-handed propaganda, simply because of Brandolini's law. Nothing can prevent Wikipedia from learning the scientific consensus and telling it as it is.

Yup, Wikipedia isn't a party to the scientific debate, therefore Wikipedia simply takes at face value the judgments upon pseudoscience made by the scientific authorities and by the recognized debunkers of pseudoscience. But Wikipedia is a hard-core encyclopedia like Britannica and Larousse, and mainly so through kowtowing to WP:SPOV and mainstream WP:SCHOLARSHIP. Otherwise, it isn't clear to me what you mean and how would you like this article to be changed. And it is quite true that Wikipedia isn't the referee of the scientific consensus, but nothing prevents Wikipedia from learning what the scientific consensus is, from the proper scientific and medical authorities. So, yeah, we never WP:CITE our personal opinions in order to establish that, but Wikipedia holds the American Psychiatric Association in high respect, as a source which can clearly speak through its official channels upon the medical consensus in respect to pornography. The resolutions of the 16 US states legislatures proclaiming pornography as a public health crisis are quite deluded, and politicians should not play doctor, it's not their job, as they are not qualified to decide upon what should be the medical consensus. The US Congress already has a scientific advisor stipulated by law, namely the National Academy of Sciences. So Congressmen should drop their own personal views and follow its highly competent scientific advice. It's not the job of politicians to assess the validity of scientific claims, they should trust the experts instead. Conservative politicians would like to ban universities from teaching the theory of evolution, but as long as US remain a free country, they won't get away with that. It surely bothers them that their holy book is given the lie, and that's paid with taxpayers money. Porn as a public health crisis? That's definitely not what the National Academy of Medicine is saying. At https://www.google.com/search?q=site%3Anam.edu+pornography&newwindow=1&client=firefox-b-d there is almost nothing about porn. Also, at https://www.google.com/search?q=site:nationalacademies.org+porn+health+crisis&newwindow=1&client=firefox-b-d there is nothing which supports the claim of the 16 legislatures. Quite clearly stated here: Nelson, Kimberly M.; Rothman, Emily F. (2020). "Should Public Health Professionals Consider Pornography a Public Health Crisis?". American journal of public health. 110 (2). American Public Health Association: 151–153. doi:10.2105/ajph.2019.305498. ISSN 0090-0036. PMC 6951382. PMID 31913670. Although research suggests that pornography use likely influences some people negatively, and it merits further research, pornography itself is not a crisis. The movement to declare pornography a public health crisis is rooted in an ideology that is antithetical to many core values of public health promotion and is a political stunt, not reflective of best available evidence. If you wonder, Rothman published her own book about pornography as a public crisis at Oxford University Press, so she is quite reliable for the claim made. The legislatures were also lambasted by McKay, Kimberley; Poulin, Christopher; Muñoz-Laboy, Miguel (30 November 2020). "Claiming Public Health Crisis to Regulate Sexual Outlets: A Critique of the State of Utah's Declaration on Pornography". Archives of sexual behavior. 50 (2). Springer Science and Business Media LLC: 401–405. doi:10.1007/s10508-020-01884-8. ISSN 0004-0002. PMC 7703733. PMID 33258005. So, yeah, Wikipedia claims very decidedly that NoFap is pseudoscience, but that is not based upon my own musings, but it is simply rendering mainstream medical science for what it is. Of course, I agree with this judgment, but this is only because I generally seek to agree with mainstream science. One does not advance public health by embracing quacks and pseudoscience-peddling grifters. It would be completely wrong if I were pushing my own POV in respect to what amounts to pseudoscience. But this is not the case, since such information is corroborated by multiple high-quality WP:RS. Why does Wikipedia wage a war against pseudoscience while Britannica and Larousse apparently don't? Because the staff of Britannica and Larousse may throw any pseudoscience-peddling letter to the garbage bin, instead of rationally arguing with the peddlers in order to convince them to behave with some respect for mainstream science. And I can assure you that by throwing your letter to the garbage bin, Britannica and Larousse do not harm you in any way, nor is there any option for legal redress. At the end of the day, science has spoken. Of course scientific consensus could change in time, but that's already a truism to all educated people. YBOP tweeted this strange idea that there is a war between me and NoFap. That I would have some agenda against NoFap. No, it is a war between mainstream psychiatry and NoFap. I only report such war, from the perspective of mainstream science and medical orthodoxy, otherwise I'm very much for get the popcorn. I'm not a party to this dispute, I'm not a party to the scientific debate, and if APA PLONKed NoFap it is not my own fault. I know very well that there is a difference between my own ideas and the scientific consensus. I know very well that Wikipedia isn't for pushing my own POV. I know very well that Wikipedia isn't based upon the personal opinions of its editors, but upon WP:RS. I'm not even opposed to APA recognizing a diagnosis of porn addiction. Knowing what I know, I asses its likelihood as extremely unlikely, but I would not cry or waste tears if that would happen. I have no shares which would fall if such diagnosis would be recognized. I'm not a party to such dispute. Many outsiders who saw my edits were firmly convinced that I am an enemy of Spiru Haret University and of the Romanian Constitutional Bar, while in reality I have no dog in such fights, and it is not me causing their legal problems. I was never harmed by NoFap, Spiru Haret University, or the Romanian Constitutional Bar, so I am not using Wikipedia for redressing my grievances. If the news are bad, blame the reality, don't shoot the messenger. Just because I don't dodge the bad news, it does not mean that I hate nofappers. My desire is to understand reality, and report it according to mainstream science. I am the bringer of bad news, but I am not myself the cause of bad news. I cultivate rational criticism, not hate speech. Really, there is no hate, more like pity. Similarly to the above-mentioned study, I think that nofappers are concerned and compassionate, but scientifically misguided. The idea that sexual fasting heals a purported addiction is fanciful, to say the least. So, I am not an "agenda-editor" and this article isn't "propaganda", unless you mean that I have an agenda for making propaganda for mainstream science, which is more commonly called educating. Wikipedia is heavily biased for mainstream science, and the claims of nofappers are, by and large, not recognized as science. The famous TEDx talk by Gary Wilson is crammed with pseudoscientific claims and suggestions to breach the ethics of psychotherapy. Coaches, unlike psychotherapists, acknowledge no professional ethics and aren't required to hold any accredited college degrees. That's why Wilson could present himself as coach, but never as psychotherapist. His TEDx speech is simply put a Gish gallop. Our article seems like heavy-handed propaganda, simply because of Brandolini's law. tgeorgescu (talk) 18:22, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

Article is obviously biased

Apparently not masturbating makes you racist, misogynistic and “whorephobic” lol. And I liked the use of “far-right, religious fundamentalists, and conservative who are biblical inerrantists” as wikipedia-speak for religious people. This article needs to be moved to Criticism of NoFap and a whole new one written that actually talks about what NoFap is I💖平沢唯 (talk) 00:59, 14 July 2022 (UTC)

Won't do. Wikipedia is biased against pseudoscience, it has always been and it will always be. And we have plenty of WP:RS telling us that NoFap is sexual pseudoscience on steroids. tgeorgescu (talk) 14:38, 14 July 2022 (UTC)

@ILoveHirasawaYui: I'm not an admin, so I'm not the person imparting bans around here. Religious guilt is an issue, however, it is the guilt of religion and not that of masturbation. And we're not even criticizing religion for this. We are criticizing the fact that random people self-diagnose with a mental disorder which is not recognized by MDs, and then proceed to self-treatment, often paying lots of money to self-appointed reboot coaches. Those who are short of money just enjoy self-treatment encouraged by the NoFap forum. In other words: that forum is loaded with psychically fragile people, very frustrated, and it is seen as a place to recruit adepts for extreme right organizations. Basically, what happened to /r/incels is happening to /r/NoFap at a slower speed; I know that the leader of NoFap does not want such troublemakers, however he is paddling upstream. And it seems that their recently deceased guru did not shy from personal attacks, threats of violence and even blackmailing his opponents into giving him control of their own website (straight dope: his attempt to get in control of their website through WIPO arbitration failed). tgeorgescu (talk) 02:45, 15 July 2022 (UTC)

See [2]. I did not write that because I would oppose masturbation, but because it is mainstream science. Same applies to what I write about NoFap. tgeorgescu (talk) 23:54, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

Empirical data

If you want sheer empirical data, here are raw empirical data: https://osf.io/pva6k Hint: it was never illegal to scientifically study publicly available information. Confidentiality contracts are only valid if signed in writing on paper by both parties. One cannot unilaterally impose that publicly available information is off-limits for scientists. Have the scientists signed their agreement to keep it confidential on paper? No, so they are not bound by website license or by disclaimers. Same as confidentiality disclaimers from e-mails are juridically worthless. If lawyers did write such disclaimers, they are incompetent lawyers. See e.g. https://cenkuslaw.com/annoying-email-confidentiality-disclaimers/ A lawyer who thinks they can unilaterally put a random person under a NDA by simply e-mailing them a disclaimer is mentally unfit for their job. tgeorgescu (talk) 17:16, 1 September 2022 (UTC)

Semi-Protected edit request

In either Litigation or the subsection Research concerning NoFap forums and followers of the Reception section, please add the lawsuit against Nicole Prause. https://www.vice.com/amp/en/article/ywa97m/nofap-founder-suing-a-neuroscientist-no-nut-november 2600:100C:A206:278D:D074:8947:B731:EC92 (talk) 07:04, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

 Done tgeorgescu (talk) 07:27, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

2600:100C:A206:278D:D074:8947:B731:EC92 appears created solely to insert a personal attack against an individual living person on this web page. The resolution of the case was never covered by any media because it is not newsworthy, failing [WP:ROUTINE]. The law firm defaming their target in national news does not make the case newsworthy. Further, Dr. Prause is not [WP:NOTWHOSWHO] as an individual scientist who admitted zero liability. The mere appearance of this case by a targeted edit from a new user appears to be NoFap members themselves trying to smear those who publish science on them. From the study "NP made reports to law enforcement due to threats of harassment and violence posted on Reboot forums that named her." The fact that the resolution was never covered makes clear wiki is being abused to include media sought by a for-profit group attacking the reputable sources and private individuals publishing science on them makes clear this was [WP:ROUTINE] nuisance suit they want to misrepresent here again. Antfightclubcatsup (talk) 02:27, 26 November 2022 (UTC)

The MAC address for the user was from a Wireshark server used to hide his identity identity. For this reason, I believe 2600:100C:A206:278D:D074:8947:B731:EC92 is actually a conflict of interest WP:COI for NoFap hiding their identity to request inappropriate edits in Wikipeda. This was one of the online resources showing the address belongs to an IP bank used to elude identification https://maclookup.app/search/result?mac=2600%3A100C%3AA206%3A278D%3AD074%3A8947%3AB731%3AEC92 Antfightclubcatsup (talk) 04:18, 26 November 2022 (UTC)

Pseudoscience

@Fantboy3: I know that many want to remove mentioning pseudoscience from this article, however that goes against the website policy WP:PSCI. 'What Wikipedia won't do is pretend that the work of "lunatic charlatans", as they were described by Jimmy Wales, is the equivalent of "true scientific discourse". It isn't.' WP:LUNATICS.

In respect to This article has a concerning agenda that does not take into account all perspectives and evidence.: you have been served with WP:GOODBIAS upon your talk page. Namely, DSM-5-TR (March 2022) gave the lie to Wilson's/YBOP's "preponderance of evidence" claim. After 20 years of broadband internet there wasn't any evidence that porn addiction even exists. tgeorgescu (talk) 13:38, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

@Fantboy3: The place to discuss the article NoFap is Talk:NoFap. According to WP:GEVAL, Wikipedia does not treat perspectives equally. The American Psychiatric Association officially gave the lie to the existence of porn addiction in March 2022, and the existence of porn addiction is NoFap's primary claim. In respect to articles rendering the views of scientists see WP:PARITY. Those who, verifiably, speak in the name of mainstream science and medical orthodoxy are given prominence in articles about WP:FRINGE topics.

About physical beliefs that are not supported by medicine see WP:CITELEAD.

NoFap believes that the stimulus porn + excessive masturbation is the cause of disease, instead of being just a symptom. By and large, psychiatrists and sexologists do not buy the into claims made by NoFap. So that makes NoFap WP:FRINGE.

NoFap justifies itself through a paranoid worldview, wherein mainstream sexologists are shills of the porn industry, in a grandiose comparison with MDs who were shills of Big Tobacco. tgeorgescu (talk) 15:53, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

---

(Moved here from my talk page. -Guy)

I have a question regarding my edits on the NoFap page of Wikipedia. I respect your comment and understand the part regarding it being based on pseudoscience. That makes sense. However, I think that a lot of my edits were, outside of the removal of this term, fair and made the article more objective. NoFap has a lot of disinformation and unsubstantiated claims in its site, and it's okay to mention that, but there were also many unsubstantiated and un-cited claims against the site which should not have been removed. If I go back and edit the article to put back in that NoFap was a pseudoscience (as this is a very real error on my part), would it be acceptable for me to revert to the other changes I had made to the article?

Thanks for your help, Fantboy3 Fantboy3 (talk) 14:58, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

Wrong place, wrong user, wrong way to try to re-introduce your edits after they were reverted.

Instead of just re-adding the edits that were reverted, please read and follow the advice at WP:BRD.

Instead of posting to any user talk page you should discuss the article at Talk:NoFap.

And if you insist on commenting on a user talk page instead of the right place, instead of posting to my talk page saying "I respect your comment and understand the part regarding it being based on pseudoscience" you should post to the talk page of the person who actually made that comment, which is tgeorgescu, not me.

I have never edited the page in question before this comment, nor have I ever had any interactions with you, but now that I have checked your posting history, I will tell you that you need to change your ways. Let's look at one of your edits: [3]

In that edit you removed "[Other reasons for abstinance include] ... physical beliefs that are not supported by medicine." with the comment "Allegations that 'the claims of the community are not supported by medicine' are not supported by the citation cited."

You should not write things that you know are not true. In particular, The Psychology Today cite[4] says:

"Unfortunately, the NoFap community seems filled with people who believe that the strength of their beliefs is equivalent to scientific evidence, and they fail to acknowledge the subjective weakness of their reliance on anecdotes... The press is part of the problem, by treating these issues as though the anecdotes and moral conviction are just as important as scientific evidence. That’s why we have the anti-vaccine crisis. Same dynamic here, thankfully with less critical results."

Did you imaging that nobody would check the citations and see that your claim was false?

At this point. I think you should propose whichever change you think is your best here on the article talk page and participate in the discussion. If it is good, others will agree and it will get into the article. Then move on to your second-best change, etc. --Guy Macon (talk) 23:45, 26 January 2023 (UTC)

@Fantboy3: You see, his response is even harsher than what I had to say. And I'm usually the party pooper in respect to porn addiction articles. tgeorgescu (talk) 12:15, 27 January 2023 (UTC)

I thought about trying pornography, but I couldn't find anyone who would sell me a pornograph. --Guy Macon (talk) 16:07, 27 January 2023 (UTC)

To be sure, this accuses the DSM-5 team of having committed the egregious error of discarding porn addiction. What did DSM-5-TR had to say about porn addiction? The same thing as DSM-5, namely that there is not enough peer-reviewed evidence that porn addiction exists at all. tgeorgescu (talk) 18:50, 28 January 2023 (UTC)

New Sexual Medicine Review

A new paper describes that r/NoFap is leading men away from evidence-based care for depression, causing harm to public health. Shahinyan, Gary K.; Hu, Ming-Yeah (2023). "Cannabis and male sexual health: contemporary qualitative review and insight into perspectives of young men on the internet". Sexual Medicine Reviews: 1–12. doi:10.1093/sxmrev/qeac010. Figvostok1enchanting (talk) 17:05, 24 February 2023 (UTC)

Agree. Valid WP:MEDRS. tgeorgescu (talk) 17:53, 24 February 2023 (UTC)

Anxiety rather than porn

About Prause's paper that anxiety rather than porn explains the failures attributed by nofappers to "porn addiction": I'm afraid such claim enters WP:MEDRS territory, which requires systematic reviews, preferably indexed for MEDLINE. That's why I chose not to cite Prause's paper. tgeorgescu (talk) 00:14, 23 October 2022 (UTC)

I have cited another paper by Prause, but I'm not interested in her novel claims, which would need WP:MEDRS support. I went for the most conservative conclusion drawn from her study, namely that the medical orthodoxy does not attribute the sufferance of NoFap users to PMO.

The wording can be still tweaked, but if there is anything upon which the medical orthodoxy is in nigh-unanimous agreement, is that the model of "repeated PMO is the cause of mental disorders" is worthless. And nofappers kind of know that, since they posit the most hilarious conspiracy theories about Big Porn paying bribes to medical researchers, same as Big Tobacco did in the past.

By and large, the only medical clinics which earn money from the porn industry are clinics which test porn actors for STDs. Prause, whatever her opinions might be, does not earn money from STDs testing. So, she has no WP:COI in respect to the porn industry. While her POVs are favorable to the porn industry, she is not on the payroll of the porn industry. And there is no need to be on their payroll, since the objective scientific evidence shows that repeated PMO is not the cause of mental disorders. Prause alone is too insignificant on her own to change the received wisdom of the psychiatric craft. Even if she were the Einstein of sexology, she is one scientist, not the scientific community.

If anything, the porn industry is motivated against funding her research, since it would create a suspicion of WP:COI, and turn out to be a PR nightmare.

Gary Wilson (author) attacked her with numerous occasions, but he made the mistake of believing that his statements are true merely because he is who says them. And, indeed, for his fan base, his words are gospel. But for the reality-based community, claims made without evidence don't mean shit.

You see, for nofappers there has to be a conspiracy against them, else they would be forced to admit they're not very good at science. tgeorgescu (talk) 20:40, 6 March 2023 (UTC)

Proxying for a banned user

I could mine the WP:RS mentioned by the banned user, but while it would make the case stronger, I'm afraid that it is basically a repetition of what already is there now in the article. And to the extent that it isn't, it fails WP:MEDRS.

Anyway, the bigger point is: whoever thinks our article is not supported by or misrepresents mainstream science is wrong. tgeorgescu (talk) 13:43, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

Retracted paper

Hi, so at this part whoever wrote this mentioned the retracted 145% testosterone paper:

"NoFap was founded in June 2011 by Pittsburgh web developer Alexander Rhodes after reading a thread on Reddit about a now-retracted study"

I can't speak on behalf of most people, but personally when I see "retracted study" I think to myself "alright, if that study got retracted then it probably had faulty methodology so I guess the conclusion was incorrect", etc.. But in this case, the article was retracted because it overlapped with a previous article the author(s) published, which was basically the same paper but in Chinese (the native language of the authors), not on account of the content of the paper itself. Here is the retraction notice in question, which is also in the main article: https://link.springer.com/article/10.1631/jzus.2003.r236

So I would like to request that someone adds a short sentence after the one I quoted that mentions this fact. Cheers 2A00:23C5:E929:9E01:FDB2:917:4A3F:9258 (talk) 23:12, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

The source for the larger section does specifically mention this study. Since the study was retracted, this seems like exactly the kind of significant detail that primary sources are useful for. I don't think it's entirely accurate to say that this wasn't about the content of the paper itself. As Retraction in academic publishing explains, a retraction is not the same as a correction. The point of retraction is that a retracted study should no longer be cited.

I have adjusted this to explain that this study was originally from 2003, and wasn't retracted until 2021. This seemed like a potential source of confusion, since most of the article is about things which happened prior to this retraction. Grayfell (talk) 23:58, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

Oh, it's also probably worth mentioning WP:MEDRS. Medical sources are held to a higher standard on Wikipedia, and this one should not be cited for factual claims for multiple reasons, even without having been retracted. Grayfell (talk) 00:03, 19 April 2023 (UTC)

What??

Hi, i'm from the nofap community, and being honest, the comments about nofap are, exagerated to say the least, first of all, almost everyone from the community is not misognist or racist, where did you guys get his from? 2804:1B3:AD83:E9C7:60C9:2F2C:C8F8:2B44 (talk) 20:22, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

Do you have any WP:Reliable Sources backing up that position, or is that your WP:Original Research. Also see WP:MANDY. Cakelot1 (talk) 06:59, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

Yup, there is a distinction between epistemologically responsible knowledge and WP:THETRUTH. We don't know "the truth", we only know what is epistemologically responsible, as rendered by WP:RS.

If you want "proof", just count the claims of conspiracy from https://www.reddit.com/r/NoFap/comments/u34ltr/the_double_standards_are_insane/ They basically claim that the articles cited herein are paid by the V.I.L.E. porn industry, and that the tiny world elite is robbing men of their wealth and freedom, mainly through not teaching them that semen retention boosts health and energy (esotericism). tgeorgescu (talk) 13:28, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

tgeorgescu fyi NoFap moderators are inciting posts on Wiki, claiming pornography paid for this page. Again. This is why there are new posts without any new scientific citations. They appear to be angry about a 2021 article accurately cited in the wiki and plotting to try to get it removed. https://www.reddit.com/r/NoFap/comments/125kj0f/wtf_is_going_on_with_wikipedia_nofap_creates/ Guardsmanmario (talk) 15:26, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

Mainstream society has gone far left. ROFLMAO. "Mainstream society has gone far neoliberal" would be more accurate. tgeorgescu (talk) 16:03, 19 April 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 4 June 2023

In the article it says "NoFap was founded in June 2011 by Pittsburgh web developer Alexander Rhodes after reading a thread on Reddit about a 2003 study, (which was retracted in 2021)". However, this is incomplete as it makes it seem like the retraction was due to a scientific error. On the retraction, it says that it was retracted because it "significantly overlaps with a previously published article in Chinese" Source. Can the line be edited to say "(which was retracted in 2021 due to overlap with another published article in Chinese)"? This helps clarify that it was retracted for reasons other than a scientific error and was just retracted because it was a duplicate of another paper. InTheEnd322 (talk) 02:49, 4 June 2023 (UTC)

 Done — Paper9oll (🔔 • 📝) 05:03, 4 June 2023 (UTC)

Yup, and generally speaking scientific papers are not retracted for "scientific errors" but for things such as fraud or ethical violations. Bona fide papers do not get retracted, even if considered debunked. tgeorgescu (talk) 17:34, 4 June 2023 (UTC)

Women in nofap

The 2014 internet poll cited for the 99% male demographics in nofap is marked as an unreliable source. The other source is an academic paper which cites the poll. A more recent source (2019) is this reporting from the Guardian (https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2019/sep/09/whats-causing-women-to-join-the-nofap-movement), perhaps this should be updated. Kleinhern (talk) 05:59, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

Pseudoscience

Lets talk about it your all Informations are incorrect No-Fap originally originated from Celibacy more than 5000 years before when people were believing in flat Earth theory. Giving more information about that I was myself a porn addict but after leaving it I experienced change in my life you can ask my Psychologist. Even today's Neuroscience agree to it! Another thing is that before industrialisation even your forefathers including mine when there were no smart phones and TV's. They didn't know too much about faping. They were mentally and physically strong if you still don't believe you can ask Dr. Trish Leigh about this!

https://www.facebook.com/drtrishleigh 106.207.36.194 (talk) 05:42, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

Trish Leigh is:

• not a scientist;
• not a medical researcher;
• not a psychology researcher;
• not a sexology researcher.

And porn addiction is a bogus diagnosis, source: DSM-5-TR. tgeorgescu (talk) 07:06, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

Anyway, my evidence for my claims is this: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/?term=leigh+pornography . And neurofeedback is WP:FRINGE. tgeorgescu (talk) 03:06, 23 April 2023 (UTC)

[...] Yes, the "theory" of "porn addiction" is clearly a crude case of religious hysteria masquerading as science for political purposes. [...] Random person no 362478479 (talk) 14:19, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

Quoted by tgeorgescu (talk) 16:42, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

@Tgeorgescu I don't think my talk page contributions are recognised as RS by Wikipedia quite yet. Though obviously they should -- maybe we should start a RFC to enshrine me in the list of reliable sources.^[Humour] -- Random person no 362478479 (talk) 21:41, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

Do you know what it's called when a simple phrase like Master of Your Domain propels a formerly niche sitcom into the number one show on television? It's called porn addiction being globally recognized as real. That doesn't mean it's physiological but words have many meanings at the same time. Connor Behan (talk) 18:09, 9 September 2023 (UTC)

WP:DEM: the large popular masses do not make the call. WP:MEDRS make the call. tgeorgescu (talk) 18:15, 9 September 2023 (UTC)

Nope. English is a descriptive language. If you want "addiction" to always mean something medical, you would've had to be around hundreds of years ago to stop millions of people from using it to describe things that are not always medical. Connor Behan (talk) 21:35, 9 September 2023 (UTC)

Wikipedia sides with WP:BESTSOURCES. There is no way around that.

But, technically, that's right: "addiction" is a concept of pop psych, not of mainstream psychiatry. I just don't see how that bolsters the case for NoFap being science-based. tgeorgescu (talk) 00:03, 10 September 2023 (UTC)

Neuer Slate artikel über neue wissenschaft und selbstmord

Ist Slate eine zuverlässige quelle? WP:RS? https://slate.com/human-interest/2023/07/nofap-masturbation-reddit-forum-suicide.html. Angurispome (talk) 06:22, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

Nofappers surely don't get this, but I'm not sure Prause does, either: there are draconian rules for making medical claims within Wikipedia, see WP:MEDRS. tgeorgescu (talk) 19:31, 16 September 2023 (UTC)