Talk:Pornography addiction

Unscientific ?

Are we sure this is unscientific? Yourbrainonporn and fight the new drug have science for this Jm33746 (talk) 23:16, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

https://fightthenewdrug.org/how-porn-can-affect-the-brain-like-a-drug/ Jm33746 (talk) 23:27, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

As you've been already told, Wikipedia relies on sources that meet WP:MEDRS, not random blogs and advocacy sites. MrOllie (talk) 23:30, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

• The main sources used for the above blog are articles from the Telangana Journal of Psychiatry, reflecting the views of the Indian Psychiatry Society. Dimadick (talk) 06:17, 18 March 2023 (UTC)

You should know that popular superstition scares Hindus of losing their semen. So, while the measured effect could be real, it only says that people terrified of losing their vital energy are also terrified of porn and masturbation, simply because of their religious upbringing. And, yup, such effect is not unique to Hindus, Conservative Christians are also scared of porn and masturbation because of their own religious upbringing. There are peer-reviewed studies to that extent. DSM-IV-TR has an entry about shenkui, a syndrome due to being scared of losing semen which only exists among the Chinese and their neighboring nations. So, yeah, the effect is real, but they are not measuring porn addiction, they are measuring cultural attitudes inducing nocebo. Here: Grubbs, Joshua B.; Exline, Julie J.; Pargament, Kenneth I.; Volk, Fred; Lindberg, Matthew J. (28 June 2016). "Internet Pornography Use, Perceived Addiction, and Religious/Spiritual Struggles". Archives of Sexual Behavior. 46 (6). Springer Science and Business Media LLC: 1733–1745. doi:10.1007/s10508-016-0772-9. ISSN 0004-0002. tgeorgescu (talk) 13:22, 18 March 2023 (UTC)

Citations

1Love, T., Laier, C., Brand, M., Hatch, L., & Hajela, R. (2015). Neuroscience of Internet Pornography Addiction: A Review and Update. Behavioral sciences (Basel, Switzerland), 5(3), 388–433. https://doi.org/10.3390/bs5030388

2Stark R., Klucken T. (2017) Neuroscientific Approaches to (Online) Pornography Addiction. In: Montag C., Reuter M. (eds) Internet Addiction. Studies in Neuroscience, Psychology and Behavioral Economics. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-46276-9_7

3De Sousa, A., & Lodha, P. (2017). Neurobiology of Pornography Addiction - A clinical review. Telangana Journal of Psychiatry, 3(2), 66-70. doi:10.18231/2455-8559.2017.0016

4Costumero, V., Barrós-Loscertales, A., Bustamante, J. C., Ventura-Campos, N., Fuentes, P., Rosell-Negre, P., & Ávila, C. (2013). Reward sensitivity is associated with brain activity during erotic stimulus processing. PloS one, 8(6), e66940. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0066940

5De Sousa, A., & Lodha, P. (2017). Neurobiology of Pornography Addiction - A clinical review. Telangana Journal of Psychiatry, 3(2), 66-70. doi:10.18231/2455-8559.2017.0016

6Brand, M., Snagowski, J., Laier, C., & Maderwald, S. (2016). Ventral striatum activity when watching preferred pornographic pictures is correlated with symptoms of Internet pornography addiction. NeuroImage, 129, 224–232. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuroimage.2016.01.033

7De Sousa, A., & Lodha, P. (2017). Neurobiology of Pornography Addiction - A clinical review. Telangana Journal of Psychiatry, 3(2), 66-70. doi:10.18231/2455-8559.2017.0016

8De Sousa, A., & Lodha, P. (2017). Neurobiology of Pornography Addiction - A clinical review. Telangana Journal of Psychiatry, 3(2), 66-70. doi:10.18231/2455-8559.2017.0016

9Rosenberg, H., & Kraus, S. (2014). The relationship of “passionate attachment” for pornography with sexual compulsivity, frequency of use, and craving for pornography. Addictive Behaviors, 39(5), 1012-1017.

10Snagowski, J., Laier, C., Duka, T., & Brand, M. (2016). Subjective Craving for Pornography and Associative Learning Predict Tendencies Towards Cybersex Addiction in a Sample of Regular Cybersex Users. Sexual Addiction & Compulsivity, 23(4), 342-360. doi:10.1080/10720162.2016.1151390

11Laier, C., & Brand, M. (2017). Mood changes after watching pornography on the Internet are linked to tendencies towards Internet-pornography-viewing disorder. Addictive Behaviors Reports, 5, 9-13. doi:10.1016/j.abrep.2016.11.003

12Teffer, K., & Semendeferi, K. (2012). Human prefrontal cortex: evolution, development, and pathology. Progress in brain research, 195, 191–218. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-444-53860-4.00009-X

13Volkow, N. D., Wang, G. J., Fowler, J. S., Tomasi, D., Telang, F., & Baler, R. (2010). Addiction: decreased reward sensitivity and increased expectation sensitivity conspire to overwhelm the brain's control circuit. BioEssays : news and reviews in molecular, cellular and developmental biology, 32(9), 748–755. https://doi.org/10.1002/bies.201000042

14Kuhn, S., & Gallinat, J. (2014). Brain Structure and Functional Connectivity Associated With Pornography Consumption: The Brain on Porn. JAMA Psychiatry, 71(7), 827-834. doi:10.1001/jamapsychiatry.2014.93

15Volkow, N. D., Koob, G. F., & McLellan, A. T. (2016). Neurobiologic advances from the brain disease model of addiction. N Engl J Med, 374(4), 363-371. doi:10.1056/NEJMra1511480

16Kühn, S., & Gallinat, J. (2014). Brain structure and functional connectivity associated with pornography consumption: The brain on porn. JAMA psychiatry, 71(7), 827–834. https://doi.org/10.1001/jamapsychiatry.2014.93

17Antons, S., Mueller, S. M., Wegmann, E., Trotzke, P., Schulte, M. M., & Brand, M. (2019). Facets of impulsivity and related aspects differentiate among recreational and unregulated use of Internet pornography. Journal of behavioral addictions, 8(2), 223–233. https://doi.org/10.1556/2006.8.2019.22

18Reid, R. C., Karim, R., McCrory, E., & Carpenter, B. N. (2010). Self-reported differences on measures of executive function and hypersexual behavior in a patient and community sample of men. The International journal of neuroscience, 120(2), 120–127. https://doi.org/10.3109/00207450903165577

19Negash, S., Sheppard, N. V., Lambert, N. M., & Fincham, F. D. (2016). Trading Later Rewards for Current Pleasure: Pornography Consumption and Delay Discounting. Journal of sex research, 53(6), 689–700. https://doi.org/10.1080/00224499.2015.1025123

20Hilton, D. L., & Watts, C. (2011). Pornography addiction: A neuroscience perspective. Surgical neurology international, 2, 19. https://doi.org/10.4103/2152-7806.76977

21Young K. S. (2013). Treatment outcomes using CBT-IA with Internet-addicted patients. Journal of behavioral addictions, 2(4), 209–215. https://doi.org/10.1556/JBA.2.2013.4.3

22Nathanson, A. (2021). Psychotherapy with young people addicted to internet pornography. Psychoanal.Study Child, 74(1), 160-173. doi:10.1080/00797308.2020.1859286

23Pfefferbaum, A., Rosenbloom, M. J., Chu, W., Sassoon, S. A., Rohlfing, T., Pohl, K. M., Zahr, N. M., & Sullivan, E. V. (2014). White matter microstructural recovery with abstinence and decline with relapse in alcohol dependence interacts with normal ageing: a controlled longitudinal DTI study. The lancet. Psychiatry, 1(3), 202–212. https://doi.org/10.1016/S2215-0366(14)70301-3

24Yau, Y. H., & Potenza, M. N. (2015). Gambling disorder and other behavioral addictions: recognition and treatment. Harvard review of psychiatry, 23(2), 134–146. https://doi.org/10.1097/HRP.0000000000000051

25Rullmann, M., Preusser, S., Poppitz, S., Heba, S., Gousias, K., Hoyer, J., Schütz, T., Dietrich, A., Müller, K., Hankir, M. K., & Pleger, B. (2019). Adiposity Related Brain Plasticity Induced by Bariatric Surgery. Frontiers in human neuroscience, 13, 290. https://doi.org/10.3389/fnhum.2019.00290

26Gilliland, R., South, M., Carpenter, B. N., & Hardy, S. A. (2011). The roles of shame and guilt in hypersexual behavior.18(1), 12-29. doi:10.1080/10720162.2011.551182 Jm33746 (talk) 19:59, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

@Jm33746: Scientific sources aren't born equal. See WP:MEDRS. Scientific sources are not people, so do not enjoy human rights. Scientists are people, but their papers aren't people.

Porn addiction is a scientific dispute of the 2010s, I do not think that it got much traction in the 2020s.

E.g. Psychotherapy with young people addicted to internet pornography is not even indexed for PubMed, let alone MEDLINE. How do we call treating minors for an unrecognized mental disorder? We call it medical malpractice. "addicted to internet pornography" is a bogus diagnosis.

Friendly advice: if you don't like WP:BESTSOURCES, you won't last long as a Wikipedia editor. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/?term=nathanson+pornography shows 0 (zero, naught) results. tgeorgescu (talk) 05:37, 5 April 2023 (UTC)

Friendly advice: Just because something is published/indexed on Pubmed doesn't mean its reliable:

https://www.mcgill.ca/oss/article/critical-thinking-health-and-nutrition-general-science/finding-paper-pubmed-does-not-mean-paper-any-good

As it turns out, Pubmed regularly indexes studies from predatory journals:

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6148641/

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7520066/

Oh and here is the Nathonson study, published in a reputable journal, which is what WP:BESTSOURCES is all about:

https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/00797308.2020.1859286

Seems like you need to read carefully what WP:BESTSOURCES is, given that you don't seem to like it. Ducornius (talk) 15:47, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

Another source pointing out the flaws with Pubmed:

https://scholarlykitchen.sspnet.org/2017/09/07/confusion-journals-pubmed-now/ Ducornius (talk) 15:48, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

No one has suggested that everything in PubMed is reliable (per WP:MEDRS our guidelines say the opposite). But it is a minimum bar - if a medical journal is not indexed there that is a massive red flag. MrOllie (talk) 16:28, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

Yet we have plenty of studies from predatory journals which are Medline indexed.

I would argue that having a Medline study from a predatory journal is a much bigger red flag that having a study that is not Medline indexed as it reveals glaring cracks and flaws within the Medline system.

I understand that not everything in Pubmed is reliable, that wasn't even the point of my comment.

My comment was more of a criticism towards Tgeorgescu's usage of "Oh, study not Pubmed indexed? It must be dumpster fire/unreliable" line of reasoning. Using such reasoning eliminates a large body of properly done research. Ducornius (talk) 16:49, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

Yes. Our requirements (given in WP:MEDRS) do eliminate a large body of properly done research. That is by design. We wait for replications and coverage by systematic reviews. MrOllie (talk) 16:56, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

As I said before, my comment was more directed to Tgeorgescu's line of reasoning and not towards the general WP:BESTSOURCES or WP:MEDRS rule. Ducornius (talk) 17:01, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

But then there are cases where replications and systematic reviews may not be Medline indexed and as such, will provide a more distorted view of the scientific consensus on a topic. Ducornius (talk) 17:02, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia is fine with that. We need to have some minimum standards, and these are the ones the community here has settled on. MrOllie (talk) 17:14, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

I understand. Thanks for providing your input Mr Ollie. Have a good day. Ducornius (talk) 17:42, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

Besides, this article itself contains so many factual errors and pseudoscientific claims, I'm flabbergasted to see this page not be tagged for WP:NPOV.

Here's an example from the article:

"The International Classification of Disorders 11 (ICD-11) rejected "pornography addiction". Specifically, the World Health Organization (WHO) wrote: "Based on the limited current data, it would therefore seem premature to include [Internet use] in ICD-11.""

There are two major issues with this part:

1. ICD 11 did not reject porn addiction because it was never under any formal diagnosis. WHO spokesperson Christian Lindmeier has mentioned this in an interview with SELF:

https://www.self.com/story/compulsive-sexual-behavior-disorder-who

"“There is ongoing scientific debate on whether or not the compulsive sexual behavior disorder constitutes the manifestation of a behavioral addiction,” WHO spokesperson Christian Lindmeier (https://www.who.int/news-room/media-contacts) tells SELF. “WHO does not use the term sex addiction because we are not taking a position about whether it is physiologically an addiction or not.”"

The ICD even updated their Additional Clinical Features section to explicitly say "use of pornography" due to misrepresentations by pro porn activists:

https://icd.who.int/browse/2024-01/mms/en#1630268048

"

Compulsive Sexual Behaviour Disorder may be expressed in a variety of behaviours, including sexual behaviour with others, masturbation, use of pornography, cybersex (internet sex), telephone sex, and other forms of repetitive sexual behaviour.

"

2. WHO did not write "Based on the limited current data, it would therefore seem premature to include [Internet use] in ICD-11.", Jon Grant did in 2014. The line was referring to Internet Gaming Disorder, not Porn addiction:

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4102276/

"The DSM-5 has included Internet gaming disorder in the section “Conditions for further study”. Although potentially an important behaviour to understand, and one certainly with a high profile in some countries 12, it is questionable whether there is enough scientific evidence at this time to justify its inclusion as a disorder. Based on the limited current data, it would therefore seem premature to include it in the ICD-11."

There are so many more errors, but this stood out the most. Ducornius (talk) 16:57, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

What about Donald Hilton ? 159.230.209.97 (talk) 14:33, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

AFAIK Hilton is a surgeon, so whatever his specialism is, it isn't porn. He has no qualifications/expertise to pass as a WP:RS about the existence of porn addiction. tgeorgescu (talk) 15:27, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

A surgeon writing on psychology? What next, should we evaluate the opinions of bartenders on psychology? They are equally qualified to Hilton. Dimadick (talk) 10:11, 20 April 2024 (UTC)

Generally speaking, the idea the masturbation produces diseases is sheer insanity. It is, simply put, delirium. tgeorgescu (talk) 11:13, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

https://www.indy100.com/lifestyle/porn-side-effects-sex-coach 184.170.66.130 (talk) 03:37, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

Dr. Trish is not a scientific researcher. According to publish or perish, she only published one paper, more than a decade ago. tgeorgescu (talk) 04:33, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

David Ley is not a scientific researcher either, but that didn't stop you from citing his Psychology Today opinion pieces. Ducornius (talk) 15:32, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

Apples and oranges. Ley at least seems reliably published, which cannot be said about YouTube videos. The problem is that high-quality medical and scientific sources do not discuss the matter, so Wikipedia defaults to WP:PARITY. If you think they do, WP:CITE your WP:SOURCES.

Besides, the situation is extremely asymmetrical, see WP:PSCI, WP:GEVAL, WP:ECREE, and WP:FRINGE.

Leigh isn't a top neuroscientist. That journalistic description is WP:CB, making the source unreliable.

Mainstream scientists who debunk porn addiction aren't pro porn activists. The APA team who wrote DSM-5-TR aren't pro porn activists. Scientists have their reasons for rejecting porn addiction, and their reasons have nothing to do with activism. It's an objective fact that porn addiction isn't accepted by mainstream science. It's not the job of Wikipedia to change mainstream science, see WP:RGW.

"Kraus thinks it’s likely that WHO’s designation will influence both future research in the U.S. and discussions about adding CSBD, or something similar, to future versions of the DSM."—that's a huge prediction, and it did not come true four years later.

Let me make a prediction: if DSM-6 won't endorse porn addiction, it will be dead in the water, medically speaking.

"Based on the limited current data, it would therefore seem premature to include it in the ICD-11" is speaking about problematic Internet use. Very easy to miss this point if you don't read the whole paragraph.

"The International Classification of Disorders 11 (ICD-11) rejected "pornography addiction" is not original research. WP:SOURCES have been WP:CITED in order to WP:V it. The claim is based upon WP:RS which are higher in the pecking order than an interview for a journal, including a book by a Christian full professor, published at a Christian publishing house. I don't WP:CENSOR the views of Christians who are talking sense.

If you disagree that the Ley source is reliable, take it to WP:RSN. But I warn you that the claim is based upon multiple WP:RS, and dropping Ley won't have much effect upon the text of this article.

So, it is WP:V that neither the ICD, nor the DSM recognize porn addiction. You could split hairs that the ICD does not deny that there could be porn addiction, but does not recognize it either. Science has spoken. We tell our readers this objective fact about medical science.

To tell it as it is, addiction is a term from the 1970s. Today it isn't a recognized diagnosis. tgeorgescu (talk) 12:04, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

The topic of sex and porn compulsive behaviors have certainly come up within the discussions prior to the publishing of those clinical manuals, the only objective fact here is that they, as of current day, don't recognize the diagnosis of any such condition. That doesn't mean those conditions are non-existent, as evident by this very article, along with those very discussions and debate that are readily available. Not to mention a cultural movement which would suggest otherwise.

I don't see any issue with letting readers know what "the science" (yes, those are scare quotes) says. Science evolves, and what was true yesterday isn't always what's true today. Additionally, as long as RS suggest that "the science" could be wrong, we should include that too per NPOV/BALANCE. Kcmastrpc (talk) 12:12, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

That "the science" could be wrong is a truism. Every educated person knows that science isn't infallible. That does not exempt Wikipedians from being epistemically responsible. tgeorgescu (talk) 12:15, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

I agree with your comment. In its current state, the article grossly violates WP:NPOV and is in a dire need of balancing. This article provides a one sided, pro porn view of the controversy and as such, will benefit greatly from presenting the opposing view of the pro porn version of the controversy and will aid in improving the objectivity of the article. Ducornius (talk) 16:45, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

"Neutral" does not mean "some say this, some say that" on Wikipedia. It means "follow where the sources go". See WP:FALSEBALANCE. --Hob Gadling (talk) 14:13, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

As I said above, the situation is extremely asymmetrical, see WP:PSCI, WP:GEVAL, WP:ECREE, and WP:FRINGE. You might want to read those links, otherwise you're talking about stuff you don't know anything. I.e. your understanding of WP:NPOV is severely mistaken.

I also said that "science is fallible" does not mean an exemption from epistemic responsibility. It's not a warrant to play fast and loose with the scientific consensus or the medical consensus. The ICD has spoken, the DSM has spoken, "addiction" is a deprecated term, so there will never be such a diagnosis as "porn addiction". Neurosis, neurasthenia, and addiction aren't valid diagnoses in the 21st century. By definition a diagnosis of addiction is always bogus and won't be covered by your medical insurance.

I'm neither for nor against the diagnosis of CSBD. CSBD is all what the anti-porn side has got till now.

Hint: Wikipedia censors fringe views by design. Unless you will be cheerfully singing the hymn of "a mighty fortress is mainstream science" and "a mighty fortress is the medical orthodoxy", you won't like it here. This is not a website wherein we equate mainstream science/medical orthodoxy with fringe views.

As for the argument "porn addiction came with broadband internet": DSM-5-TR was written 20 years after broadband internet was introduced.

Ideally, Wikipedia renders the truth according to WP:CHOPSY. So, convince CHOPSY and Wikipedia will be offered to you on a golden plate. So, if your knowledge fails the CHOPSY test, we rightly shun it.

In other words, the resolutions of the Parliaments of those 16 US states have been written by lunatic charlatans, and we tell this for a fact.

We don't give equal validity to a book published by a full professor at Oxford University Press and the ravings of MAGA lunatics. tgeorgescu (talk) 11:16, 6 April 2024 (UTC)

Ascribing MAGAism to this contentious issue without considering the discourse taking place in the academic and professional community is about as WP:STRAWMAN as it gets. With regards to WP:CHOPSY, I'm under the impression that these topics have been, and still are, widely and publicly debated in academia. Of course, we must rely on RS, and it's within the interest of our readers to cover that discourse so as to remain neutral.

Professionals who disagree with the current DSM framework are not, in fact, quacks. This isn't settled science, and we're not talking about flat earth conspiracy so applying WP:FRINGE to your argument is not only a stretch, it's kind of hilarious. I'm not arguing that we disregard the scientific communities findings altogether, but that we balance that with the ongoing dispute within the scientific and academic community while using reputable sources. Kcmastrpc (talk) 12:11, 6 April 2024 (UTC)

The debate is among systematic reviews indexed for MEDLINE (both requirements have to apply) or higher quality sources. We don't consider WP:PRIMARY studies or advocacy pieces.

And, trust me, there aren't many systematic reviews indexed for MEDLINE, from the past five years, which mention verbatim "pornography addiction". I would be amazed if I couldn't count them on my fingers. tgeorgescu (talk) 12:32, 6 April 2024 (UTC)

Are you suggesting that every source in this article meets such requirements and/or isn't an advocacy piece? What about this source? Kcmastrpc (talk) 12:36, 6 April 2024 (UTC)

The information in our article does not stand or fall by citing Ley. There are several higher quality sources which make the same point. The only merit that that source has is that it told pretty early what higher quality sources told later. For two or three years, Ley was the only source I could find online. Why did I trust Ley? Because he is somewhat an insider to such disputes. Although he has a POV, he is intelligent, well-informed, and does not play fast and loose with the facts. So, even if the source is low on the pecking order, other sources have shown that it is a reliable source for the claim made. tgeorgescu (talk) 14:03, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

I disagree completely, it appears Ley, among other authors cited, are not considered academics in this field. Some of them are clinical psychologists promulgating a POV they've latched onto and are primarily known for their bias. This article is a complete mess and should probably be tagged as NPOV, however, I don't have the time nor understanding of what qualifies as a peer-reviewed MEDLINE article to balance this article. So, with that I'm going to drop a small rant and hope someone with a bit more time and expertise than I do can take up this work.

It's not Wikipedia's job to "debunk" anything, we should simply present that this is contentious topic, why it's contentious by presenting the arguments using reliable and peer reviewed sources. The fact is that the discussions leading up to the publishing of the latest DSM and other diagnostic manuals had lengthy debates around this topic, and researchers are still clamoring for more studies into this topic. This alone should be enough for any editor who isn't WP:NOTHERE to find sources to provide WP:BALANCE. Most notably, Ley and by cherry-picking Rothman you haven't convinced me that doing otherwise would be WP:FALSEBALANCE, find better sources or use the ones that already exist.

Sexual violence, partner violence, anxiety, depression, compulsive pornography use, and commercial sexual exploitation are public health problems, and there is a possibility that pornography exacerbates these problems. Given that possibility, we need to know more about whether, how, and why pornography influences social norms as well as individuals' behavior, and what we can do to address that if it is harmful. - Rothman, 2021 Kcmastrpc (talk) 12:38, 9 April 2024 (UTC)

Right, there is a possibility, i.e. no established scientific knowledge that affirms that for a fact.

WP:BIASED sources are not banned, unreliable sources are. I have shown above that Ley is reliable for the claim made. Among free to read sources, his article is still the most clear-cut commentary on the issue. And we use WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV, as required by WP:BIASED.

About debunk: have you read the articles Acupuncture or Ayurveda? These articles clearly look like debunking to their adepts. tgeorgescu (talk) 16:55, 10 April 2024 (UTC)

Coming back to Ley, I agree that he isn't a scientific researcher. He can be characterized as a stakeholder, i.e. a prominent voice in such debate. The term "scholar" is more fitting for him than "scientific researcher". tgeorgescu (talk) 18:06, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

Also: WP:USEBYOTHERS. Ley was cited as an expert by another expert (Amee Baird), who was published at a reputable university press. tgeorgescu (talk) 23:54, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

The real question is if APA has to invent a diagnosis of "porn addiction", or the already well-established diagnoses are enough for treating compulsive masturbators (the medical folklore is that such cases are extremely rare). tgeorgescu (talk) 01:03, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

Effects of pornography – related problems

Editors, the article Effects of pornography is largely written based on primary sources and promoting the claim that pornography addiction is a real phenomena. Best for experienced editors on this topic to begin working to improve the article to reflect scientific consensus, as the articles cover similar ground. Zenomonoz (talk) 08:02, 9 April 2024 (UTC)

MEDRS

@OroborosCackling: Please never WP:CITE again a MDPI journal for claims which need to comply with WP:MEDRS. tgeorgescu (talk) 09:45, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

Dopamine dependency

Pornography addiction is described as a ‘dopamine dependency’, pornography causes excessive dopamine levels in the brain 2605:59C0:E6:410:F009:F922:8A80:F974 (talk) 03:18, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

I don't know what dopamine dependency is supposed to mean. "Dopamine produces addiction" is an old canard. "Dopamine serves many complex functions in the brain, and only kindergarten brain science describes it as an addictive drug." Source: https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/women-who-stray/201701/no-dopamine-is-not-addictive

Also, see WP:BIGMISTAKE: your opinion does not matter, mine does not matter, either. You need WP:MEDRS for your claims.

Unless you can WP:CITE WP:MEDRS to that extent, pornography causes excessive dopamine levels in the brain looks like a completely made up claim. And it is WP:FRINGE and a non sequitur. tgeorgescu (talk) 14:17, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

Correct. Zenomonoz (talk) 08:45, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

“ This sensitization related to long-term sexual arousal and hyperexcitability may have negative consequences for balance between excitatory and inhibitory neural systems, and due to various neurobiological changes, such as increased dopamine production and corticoid arousal, it may cause uncontrolled hypersexual behavior”Pornography Consumption and Cognitive-Affective Distress

Michal Privara, MA and Petr Bob, PhD 2600:8805:5101:A600:FCBA:DA68:442C:7486 (talk) 20:02, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

See WP:CITIZENDIUM: we don't care about your credentials, but only about your ability to WP:CITE WP:MEDRS. Since DSM-5-TR, ICD-11, and the ASAM manual have spoken, you also have to fulfill WP:ECREE.

See Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Pornography addiction.

Also, from 2022 to 2023 it is an extremely short time for revamping the medical consensus.

The ASAM manual was published in 2024. It is WP:CITED in our article. tgeorgescu (talk) 07:26, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

the science is clear-porn use is a dopamine dependency, "Dopamine dysregulation is at the heart of porn addiction, cravings and withdrawal symptoms. Restoring normal dopamine function and sensitivity is a key to porn recovery." dopamine is a drug that "can lead to a chemical dependence' "When a person watches porn, it can trigger a release of dopamine in the brain. This release of dopamine causes the person to feel good and feel pleasure.

"Over time, as a person continues to watch porn, the brain starts associating this action with pleasurable feelings. This association can then create the urge and make a person feel the need to watch it over and over again, even if they want to stop" "Cravings happen when dopamine is triggered over and over again. Watching pornography can cause a surge in dopamine, which in turn causes a desire or appetite for more dopamine release. ' 2605:59C0:E6:410:450A:59B0:5745:5928 (talk) 04:14, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

Dependency (i.e. addiction) is a diagnosis belonging to a bygone era of psychiatry. It isn't coming back. So, there will be no porn addiction diagnosis. That ship has sailed since long ago.

And yup, I Googled "Restoring normal dopamine function and sensitivity is a key to porn recovery": it does not come from any WP:RS, let alone WP:MEDRS. It is just claptrap from YBOP.

For public health professionals peddling the dopamine canard looks silly and disreputable.

First, the link between dopamine and addiction is tenuous. Professionals speak of a link between DeltaFosB and addiction. Not about dopamine. FYI, dopamine isn't triggered by pleasure/reward, but by the anticipation of pleasure/reward.

Second, the diagnosis of addiction no longer appears in the DSM for more than fifty years. So, no, APA won't make a special exception for porn addiction.

Advice: stop peddling tentative findings of the neuroscience of the 1960s. WP:NOTDUMB. If you rely on YBOP: Gary Wilson lacked the scientific literacy to navigate such a complex field. That's why he concentrated upon finding every research which could validate his POV, instead of checking the quality of such research. Porn addiction was doomed at Wikipedia since the introduction of the WP:MEDRS guideline. And it was further doomed by the fact that two consecutive editions of the DSM have plonked it.

The deal is this: WP:CITE a WP:MEDRS that the medical orthodoxy accepts the diagnosis of porn addiction. Which you can't do, because the medical orthodoxy doesn't. tgeorgescu (talk) 06:39, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

Okay, according to WP:RSN the source is reliable, according to WP:MEDRS.

What does the source say? First, porn addiction is not a recognized disorder. Second, narcissists who watch porn tend to get a disapproving image of their own body, which would explain the rise in cosmetic surgery (such as labiaplasty). They are likely to suffer because of this tainted body image, when surgery will become powerless to improve their bodies (that comes with aging).

Source: Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 453#Pornography addiction. tgeorgescu (talk) 16:11, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

Why do I take issue with such suggestions?

Because "porn produces mental disease" is supported by nothing from mainstream medicine. Even in models like CSBD, porn is at most a by-catch symptom and not the underlying cause of the illness. tgeorgescu (talk) 08:55, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

Revert

@IP: If anything, scientifically controversial is an understatement. Porn addiction is rather pseudoscience than controversial. tgeorgescu (talk) 06:33, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

I respectfully disagree with you here, it's a valid removal as opening the lead with "scientifically controversial" is a NPOV violation and POV-fork per WP:CRITS. Avoid sections and articles focusing on criticisms or controversies. Additionally, see MOS:LEADREL This admonition should not be taken as a reason to exclude information from the lead, but rather to harmonize coverage in the lead with material in the body of the article.

It's worth noting that I don't see any overwhelming or significant coverage supporting the contentious statement "scientifically controversial" anywhere in the article body. Sure, there is ongoing discussion and debate in the scientific community, but that's not what the lead is suggesting. I support the removal until editors can show a plurality of sources that support such prose. Kcmastrpc (talk) 15:00, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

@Kcmastrpc: The controversy exists mainly for political and religious reasons. In mainstream medicine, porn addiction simply does not exist. tgeorgescu (talk) 16:50, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

@Tgeorgescu while that may be true, in order for us to declare any controversy we ought rely on high-quality reliable sourcing for such claims - and even then, policy suggests we should not outright say there's a controversy, but instead explain what is so controversial about the claims made in regards to pornography addiction. Kcmastrpc (talk) 17:21, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

There's plenty of sourcing in the article, and the article does explain what is controversial. That does not mean that the article cannot also use the phrase 'scientifically controversial' in the article opening. It is important context that needs to be given up front so readers can understand the rest of the article. MrOllie (talk) 17:55, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

I believe scientifically disputed would be more neutral and doesn't have the POV-forking nature of using the word "controversial" (which is a loaded term). Adding a NPOV tag until consensus on this matter is reached. Kcmastrpc (talk) 17:59, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

Posted to NPOV noticeboard. Kcmastrpc (talk) 18:03, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

"Controversial" is verbatim WP:V in three WP:RS. Several other WP:RS WP:CITED in the article explain why it is controversial. tgeorgescu (talk) 19:59, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for taking the time to reference and cite such claims. I'm leaning towards dropping the NPOV tag but I'd be interested in hearing from another editor or two first. Kcmastrpc (talk) 20:13, 7 November 2024 (UTC)