The subject of this article is
controversial and content may be in
dispute. When updating the article,
be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a
neutral point of view. Include
citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information.
This page is not a forum for general discussion about Pornography addiction. Any such comments
may be removed or
refactored. Please limit discussion to improvement of this article. You may wish to ask factual questions about Pornography addiction at the
Reference desk.
To view the response to a question, click the [show] link to the right of the question.
Q1: Why don't you state pornography addiction as fact?
A1: Our policies on Wikipedia, in particular
WP:WEIGHT and
WP:FRINGE, require us to provide coverage to views based on their prominence within
reliable sources, and we must reflect the opinion of the scientific community as accurately as possible. For example, if the
APA will include pornography addiction in the
DSM, then Wikipedia will rubber-stamp its decision. Otherwise, Wikipedia isn't here to give a "
fair and balanced" treatment to unsupported ideas. In this respect, Wikipedia is merely a mirror which reflects medical orthodoxy. There is no official document from
WHO,
AMA,
APA,
Cochrane or
APA which would imply that sex/porn/masturbation addiction would be a valid diagnosis. (CSBD isn't an addiction.)
Q2: Why don't you state that porn use is
paraphilia (pictophilia)?
A2: The majority of US men use porn.[1][2][3][4][5] What the majority does is axiomatically clinically normal in psychiatry. According to
The Huffington Post, 70% of men and 30% of women watch porn.[6] Quite probably, the majority of US population between ages 18 and 35 use porn at least once a week.[7]
DSM-5 code for pornography use? Not any. ICD-10 code for pornography use? Not any. ICD-11 code for pornography use? Not any. So, of course it isn't paraphilia. Even allowing that an excessive obsession with porn is paraphilia, normal (ordinary) porn use isn't.
Q3: Why don't you state that pornography increases sexual aggression?
A3: Our policies on Wikipedia, in particular
WP:WEIGHT and
WP:FRINGE, require us to provide coverage to views based on their prominence within
reliable sources, and we must reflect the opinion of the scientific community as accurately as possible. Crime statistics make the claim highly unlikely, and per
WP:EXTRAORDINARY multiple, independent and very strong
WP:MEDRS-compliant sources are required in order to overturn long-standing
medical consensus, see also
WP:RS/AC. Otherwise, Wikipedia isn't here to give a "
fair and balanced" treatment to your pet ideas. In this respect, Wikipedia is merely a mirror which reflects medical orthodoxy.
Does Malamuth say that pornography increases sexual aggression? Nope, that's a misreading of his papers, as he himself declared to
Quartz publication.[8]
^Regnerus, Mark; Gordon, David; Price, Joseph (18 December 2015). "Documenting Pornography Use in America: A Comparative Analysis of Methodological Approaches". The Journal of Sex Research. 53 (7). Informa UK Limited: 873–881.
doi:
10.1080/00224499.2015.1096886.
ISSN0022-4499. If estimates generated from the RIA or NFSS are more valid, then pornography use is—or perhaps has become—a common and frequent experience among men, with just under half of all men using pornography in an average week. It is also not an uncommon or infrequent occurrence for women, with nearly one in five reporting pornography use in the past week.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Pornography, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
pornography-related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PornographyWikipedia:WikiProject PornographyTemplate:WikiProject PornographyPornography articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Sexology and sexuality, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
human sexuality on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Sexology and sexualityWikipedia:WikiProject Sexology and sexualityTemplate:WikiProject Sexology and sexualitySexology and sexuality articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Psychology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
Psychology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PsychologyWikipedia:WikiProject PsychologyTemplate:WikiProject Psychologypsychology articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Religion, a project to improve Wikipedia's articles on Religion-related subjects. Please participate by editing the article, and help us
assess and improve articles to
good and
1.0 standards, or visit the
wikiproject page for more details.ReligionWikipedia:WikiProject ReligionTemplate:WikiProject ReligionReligion articles
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.
ISSN0004-0002.
tgeorgescu (
talk)
13:22, 18 March 2023 (UTC)reply
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
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)reply
@
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.
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)reply
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)reply
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)reply
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)reply
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)reply
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)reply
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:
"“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:
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:
"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."
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)reply
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.
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.
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)reply
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)reply
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)reply
"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)reply
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)reply
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)reply
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)reply
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, 2021Kcmastrpc (
talk)
12:38, 9 April 2024 (UTC)reply
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.
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)reply
@
Jm33746: Same rules apply according to
WP:MEDRS to her works, which apply to anyone else's works:
systematic literature review;
indexed for MEDLINE.
Higher quality sources are allowed, e.g. medical consensus statements from APA and WHO. But this is restricted to making medical claims, other works can be cited, as long as they are not making medical claims. Or as long as they explain/illustrate the points made by sources which pass
WP:MEDRS.
Anyway, from DSM-5-TR (March 2022) we learn that the side which claims that there is such a thing as porn addiction lost the scientific dispute. I'm prepared to revise my statement when DSM-6 will be published, but that will be the last chance porn addiction has before being declared dead in the water. Since in the 2020s porn addiction is no longer a scientifically credible concept. According to
WP:YESPOV, Wikipedia has to clearly declare that.
tgeorgescu (
talk)
09:32, 27 March 2023 (UTC)reply
Again, the
medical consensus is pretty clear: there is no evidence that porn addiction exists. Any view opposing the medical consensus will be treated as
WP:FRINGE.
"Struthers exposes false assumptions and casts a vision for a redeemed masculinity, showing how our sexual longings can actually propel us toward sanctification and holiness in our bodies." (emphasis mine). Sanctification and holiness are
theology, neither
psychology nor
psychiatry. That makes his book
non-science (no kidding!). Sanctification and holiness are the core business of your own church, and for your therapist it is a violation of their professional ethical code to meddle with theological issues. Any shrink or therapist could lose their license if they insist on sanctification and holiness with regard to their patients. Mental health professionals who listen to his advice will find themselves fired and unemployable. There's a limited number of jobs for fundamentalist porn addiction therapists, and hiring professionals would spoil their business.
tgeorgescu (
talk)
05:42, 5 April 2023 (UTC)reply
Sure, sure... that was news in 2014. Did it persuade APA to change its mind? Judging by DSM-5-TR: no, it didn't. "Porn addiction" or even CSBD are not included in the DSM, not even as subjects for further study.
tgeorgescu (
talk)
07:42, 4 October 2023 (UTC)reply
Christian POV
I am not a Christian, but I don't think that Christian means "biased hack who cannot tell the truth".
If anything, Bowman is higher on the academic pecking order than Martinez-Gilliard and Dhuffar-Pottiwal. He seems to be in favor of a porn addiction diagnosis, nevertheless he recognizes the facts from ICD-11 for what they are.
It seems like a valid opinion. But we are discussing facts about ICD-11 vs. opinions about ICD-11. I have no
WP:BALL to deny Bowman's claim that CSBD will be later recognized as an addiction. But we are not there yet.
tgeorgescu (
talk)
00:04, 1 August 2023 (UTC)reply
@
Potatín5: These being said, the DSM has deprecated the term "addiction", and that alone should tell you that "porn addiction" belongs to a bygone era of psychiatry. Addiction is so 1970. Neurosis, neurasthenia, and addiction are not 21st century psychiatric diagnoses. The public uses these terms a lot, but medical insurance companies do not cover such diagnoses. Any diagnosis of addiction, and the medical insurance won't pay your bill. The term "addiction" belongs to
popular psychology, not to mainstream psychiatry.
tgeorgescu (
talk)
23:36, 26 August 2023 (UTC)reply
So, I don't think there is going to be a diagnosis of "sexual addiction" or "pornography addiction" because the term "addiction" is no longer used. And "sex OCD" and "porn OCD" seem like useless additions to OCD. APA is reluctant to adopt merely verbal tricks.
tgeorgescu (
talk)
11:22, 16 October 2023 (UTC)reply
Requested move 27 October 2023
The following is a closed discussion of a
requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a
move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
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)reply