Talk:NoFap/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Activist editors

NoFap tweeted about me being a pro-porn WP:ACTIVIST. Well, not long ago I was accused of being an anti-porn activist by at least two editors. Being accused of both opposites is a sign I write neutrally.

As the song says First we take Manhattan, then we take Berlin. So the correct order of doing stuff is "first we take WP:CHOPSY, then we take Wikipedia". Per WP:MEDRS Wikipedia will never speak against medical orthodoxy. So, first take the medical orthodoxy and Wikipedia will be offered on a golden plate. Of course, this is much easier said than done. As I have stated previously, I have no problems with the claim that a small percentage of the population will become compulsive porn users. The problem of the pro-NoFap faction is that highest-quality MEDRS do not admit that NoFap is right. E.g. MDs do not treat obesity with 20 days fasting. And there is a problem of many young, gullible people self-diagnosing with porn addiction. Every medical diagnosis should be left to a MD, a licensed psychiatrist in this case. Self-diagnosis and self-treatment are just wrong. E.g. there are people who consider themselves porn addicts because they use porn once or twice a month. Sheesh!

In fact, my POV is very simple: I kowtow to mainstream science, mainstream scholarship and WP:MEDRS. Pseudoscience, quackery and fanaticism have earned my enduring wiki-hate. I do not play fast and loose with objective facts, and I hate edits which do that. WP:FRINGE POV-pushers will never have a good time at Wikipedia. And this is by design.

Wikipedia is not an advertising billboard. Just because members of the MGTOW community don't like this article doesn't mean it's biased. Wikipedia is designed to be written from a neutral point of view, not a promotional point of view. In the case of fringe opinions, such as MGTOW, Flat Earth Society, etc., the proponents of such opinions are as a rule never satisfied with the consensus version of the article. That doesn't mean Wikipedia should completely avoid covering such topics. FiredanceThroughTheNight (talk) 03:12, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

So, when will NoFap movement be content with its Wikipedia article? The answer is: never, they are malcontents at the level of WP:PAGs. Here at Wikipedia unsubstantiated claims of having the support of mainstream science get mercilessly derided. Precisely because Wikipedia loves science. Lies that NoFap enjoys the support of the medical orthodoxy get mercilessly exposed. One of the biggest faux pas at Wikipedia is to lie about easily verifiable statements, such as the amount of peer-reviewed evidence for "magnecules" or water memory. Or peddle debunked canards like masturbation increases dopamine, which produces addiction (the dopamine produces addiction canard). See why at https://www.quora.com/Is-dopamine-a-feel-good-happy-chemical-neurotransmitter/answer/Zen-Faulkes and https://www.quora.com/How-can-too-much-dopamine-cause-distressing-thoughts-if-its-a-feel-good-hormone . All people who peddle the dopamine canard are pseudoscientists pur sang. "Obviously, if you were actually to fast from dopamine it would probably be fatal," [1]. "Dopamine serves many complex functions in the brain, and only kindergarten brain science describes it as an addictive drug." [2].

It is of course much more convenient to blame me and several other editors, instead of blaming the fact that Wikipedia loves mainstream science and hates quackery and pseudoscience. Our article says The 'science' cited on NoFap is said to come from anti-porn activist Gary Wilson, "an Oregon man with no scientific training or background, who has made a career peddling pseudoscience". Wikipedia is waging war against pseudoscience, that's why NoFappers don't like this article. That is the same reason for which Gary Null and Deepak Chopra hate Wikipedia: it sees through their pseudoscientific jargon and calls it pseudoscience. And pseudoscientists hate to be recognized for what they are.

I have applied WP:RULES with WP:COMPETENCE. That's why they blame me. And the rules of Wikipedia don't offer them any other outcome. So, let's speak truthfully: NoFap hates Wikipedia for the rules that it has and for the values that it has. NoFap's image inside Wikipedia is doomed since WP:ARBPS. That arbitration decision leaves no other option than to call NoFap a fringe, pseudoscientific movement. Wikipedians simply don't have the liberty to affirm that NoFap is based upon sound science. WP:RULES don't allow that and the scientific literature (WP:MEDRS) does not allow that. Wikipedians are volunteers, but they aren't free (to write what they please). Wikipedians have to sacrifice every pseudoscientific belief on the altar of mainstream science. I mean Wikipedia does not give us a choice here. This isn't a free-speech-based forum. Facebook believes in free speech, Wikipedia doesn't. Wikipedia wants disciplined soldiers or disciplined work force to do a job. Wikipedia is simply a service which renders mainstream science, mainstream scholarship and mainstream press.

Drawing the line: the rules of Wikipedia do not allow us to write an positive article about NoFap. We have to write a positive article about NoFap.

Wikipedia will simply never deliver this article to their liking. And I am not the problem, their problem is the whole system of Wikipedia, starting with Jimbo Wales, passing through en.wiki admins and ending with active Wikipedians. Tgeorgescu (talk) 17:40, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

@RulePalestine: Don't you get it? It's not possible for Wikipedia to deliver what you want. It's not a real option, so you have zero chances of making this article to your liking. If you don't believe me then you should read "Why Does Wikipedia Want to Destroy Deepak Chopra?". Tgeorgescu (talk) 06:50, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

Scientific American requotes a book: Princeton University historian of science Michael D. Gordin adds in his forthcoming book The Pseudoscience Wars (University of Chicago Press, 2012), “No one in the history of the world has ever self-identified as a pseudoscientist. There is no person who wakes up in the morning and thinks to himself, ‘I’ll just head into my pseudolaboratory and perform some pseudoexperiments to try to confirm my pseudotheories with pseudofacts.’” As Gordin documents with detailed examples, “individual scientists (as distinct from the monolithic ‘scientific community’) designate a doctrine a ‘pseudoscience’ only when they perceive themselves to be threatened—not necessarily by the new ideas themselves, but by what those ideas represent about the authority of science, science’s access to resources, or some other broader social trend. If one is not threatened, there is no need to lash out at the perceived pseudoscience; instead, one continues with one’s work and happily ignores the cranks.” — Preceding unsigned comment added by GoatGod (talk • contribs) 01:30, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

Copy/paste from Talk:Pseudoscience/Archive 16. Tgeorgescu (talk) 06:57, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

And to answer the accusation that I would condone Prause's WP:SOCKS: not reverting an edit does not necessarily mean that I agree with it, as I have stated previously, I only revert edits for which it is clear to me that they are WP:CB (speaking from the viewpoint of academic learning), deteriorate the article or violate WP:RULES. I don't revert if these are uncertain. So, yes, I am giving people the benefit of the doubt more often than Wilson thinks. NoFap exaggerates Prause's importance: she is important because she spilled the beans about the scientific consensus, pretty much like Bart Ehrman did about source criticism. She is not important for advancing novel ideas in respect to NoFap's activity. Like Ehrman, she is the exponent of the system and she is attacked precisely because of that: NoFap can easier claim that they give the lie to Prause than that they give the lie to top 100 universities in the world. We give the lie to Ivy Plus and to every US state university sounds contrived. They are just shooting the messenger, hoping that the public won't notice that those 100 universities are on her side (or she is on theirs). So, in this case, Prause, just like Ehrman, becomes a scapegoat for the flock of true believers who are fighting the good fight against the big bad academia (or Big Science). So, what's the problem with NoFap? My guess is that for every compulsive porn user from among them, there are 99 make-believe porn addicts, who have falsely diagnosed themselves with porn addiction lured by NoFap propaganda. Their problem isn't PMO, it's the Dunning–Kruger effect. AFAIK gullible people are far more many than compulsive porn users. All germane WP:RS I saw seem to agree that porn compulsion is exceedingly rare. Psychiatrists have a very low esteem for self-diagnoses. Once I scored highly for the ADHD questionnaire, but the psychologist dismissed the test result as rubbish. Tgeorgescu (talk) 12:46, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

You see, the Mexican IP was left with only one solution: to apply triple parentheses to mainstream medicine and so on. That is a paranoid conspiracy theory, and that is where NoFap supporters have been cornered: to affirm that the lack of mainstream scientific acceptance for NoFap is due to a Judaeo-Masonic conspiracy. No other explanation makes sense to them: they "know" they are right, and they know (or at least they could know) they have been rejected by mainstream science. That's the mirror complaint of true believers who claim that the articles on acupuncture and Ayurveda engage in white supremacism, due to their WP:MEDRS WP:GOODBIAS. Tgeorgescu (talk) 19:20, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

What Wikipedia will never do is give the lie to AMA, APA and WHO. Let them proclaim your story and Wikipedia will have no other choice than to sheepishly follow suit. Wikipedia takes consensus statements from AMA, APA and WHO at face value. There is absolutely no rule to take the consensus of nofappers at face value. Porn/masturbation addiction is not a diagnosis: it is not recognized by the medical profession, it is not recognized by insurance companies. It is in the same boat with morgellons and electromagnetic hypersensitivity. The is–ought problem: Wikipedia speaks about what is medical science, NoFap speaks about what ought to be medical science. So, obviously, the two communities (Wikipedia and NoFap) don't even speak the same idiom. Wikipedia isn't the Psychiatry Reform Movement. Wikipedia seeks to accurately render psychiatry, not to reform it. Wikipedia isn't a forum for grassroots activism for scientific reform. Wikipedia takes science for what it is, without worrying too much about why is science so. We have no business second-guessing science and this isn't change.org website. As always in science, the burden of proof is upon those who set forward novel claims, it isn't upon skeptics who demand conclusive evidence. Science is organized skepticism. In science demanding evidence for novel claims isn't a sin, it is what made science great.

So, unless Gary Wilson + NoFap manage to change mainstream science, their protest against Wikipedia is in vain. Wikipedia has no choice but to render mainstream science for what it is. It is not our task to speculate about "future science". Perhaps the scientific consensus isn't where Prause wants it to be (seen the addition of CSBD to ICD-11). But it is definitely not where NoFap wants it to be. Our allegiance isn't to either Prause or NoFap. It is to the scientific consensus. Prause does not often publish systematic literature reviews in scientific journals indexed for MEDLINE, so she is not that important for Wikipedia. The quarrel between NoFap and Prause serves to make them both famous.

NoFap's sole remedy would be to overturn WP:ARBPS, which is extremely unlikely to happen, since it is an editorial policy of a website belonging to a charity (i.e. private property), so courts won't issue judgments about that. It would be like forcing the National Academy of Sciences to publish pseudoscience in PNAS, in order to promote inclusiveness for pseudoscience advocates and their constitutional right to free speech. There is no legal right of publishing or promoting pseudoscience through Wikipedia. This is private property: obey WP:PAGs or we will show you the door. Obey WP:ARBPS or you're out. The Wikimedia Community gives no one a right to promote pseudoscience inside Wikipedia.

And coming back to WP:SOCKS, there is certain stuff which I would neither add to an article nor remove it from there. I am responsible for my own deeds, not of other people's deeds.

Many people having mental disorders attribute their disorders to masturbation. That is a delusional belief, part and parcel of their mental disorders. They think that by nofapping they would heal their mental disorders. In that respect, NoFap is dangerous for their mental health: they stop taking their medicines and think that by refraining from masturbation they become psychiatrically healthy people. The myth of masturbation makes you sick/crazy did not die; it continues to be shared by the delusional and a chunk of the SCAM industry. Sellers of miracle cures cannot afford moral or scientific scruples. Practicing alternative medicine and selling supplements provides those miscreants with easy money. AFAIK NoFap does not claim to practice alternative medicine, nor does it sell supplements.

According to RationalWiki, The speculative nature and wide variety of takes on the issues reveal how factless much of nofap knowledge is. As it happens in general to uncensored medical forums, they tend to degenerate into avenues for the promotion of quackery and conspiracy theories.

Is this what @jimmy_wales envisioned when he created @Wikipedia ? We don't think so.

— twitter.com

Well, I can tell that the Twitter poster had never read WP:QUACKS. Jimmy Wales is firmly on the side of WP:MEDRS and WP:ARBPS, no doubts about that.

In order to correct a misunderstanding: Wikipedia does not seek to silence NoFap. It just describes NoFap as based upon shoddy science, and that is entirely NoFap's own fault. We do not seek to put a gag on free speech outside of Wikipedia, but we have to call a spade a spade. On, in this case, call shoddy science shoddy science. NoFap's big problem is that they advocate a therapy which lacks epistemic warrant. E.g. CSBD diagnoses will have to wait till 1 January 2022, when ICD-11 becomes applicable. And since US has announced its retreat from WHO, we don't know if ICD-11 will ever become applicable in US. Adding ICD-11 to the law of the land several months after quitting WHO would be entirely farcical. US would then pledge to follow what it pledges not to follow.

If you have any opinion which is not illegal, you are free to express it upon our website — that's what Twitter and Facebook believe, not what Wikipedia believes. Wikipedia works with WP:NOTFREESPEECH.

NoFap should say We don't like what medical sciences say. We don't like what psychology says. We want to ignore MDs and psychologists. At least this is a clear and coherent position. Holding the position that NoFap is science-based, while it continuously gets creamed by scientists pertains to cognitive dissonance. At least they should get coherent: NoFap has already rejected medical sciences and psychology, as taught at world's most reputable universities. Pretending otherwise is just lame. Editing this article is under discretionary sanctions for pseudoscience and fringe science for a reason. Don't blame me for the fact that NoFap is considered pseudoscience/fringe science. I don't play the victim, but don't blame me for what is not my fault. The fact that NoFap is pseudoscience has nothing to do with my own person. Wikipedia does not consider me a WP:RS in such debate. Tgeorgescu (talk) 13:36, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

In the TGPE video, Wilson states that internet porn use is associated with various clinical disorders including ADHD, depression, social anxiety and OCD. He opposes the prescription of medications to treat these disorders and states, “Guys don’t realize that they can overcome these symptoms simply by changing their behaviour [masturbation to internet porn].” As someone trained in psychology, I find this extremely problematic and entirely unethical.

— Dr. Jason Winters

Quoted by Tgeorgescu. On every subject I push the mainstream academic view, because that's what every Wikipedian should do. So, if you want to fundamentally change this article, you will have to change the mainstream academic view. No more, no less. What about ICD-11? Therein it is not an addiction, does not use the dopamine canard and Trump wants to say bye-bye to ICD-11.

If you ask me, NoFap is peanuts. Why do I bother, then? Because there is a higher principle at stake. We (the Wikipedia community) don't want that Wikipedia becomes infected by pseudoscience. That's what the fuss is all about. I do not hate nofappers. They believe that not masturbating is the holy grail of mental disorders. According to WP:ARBPS that's pseudoscience. So, no, I cannot change the POV of this article. That will have to change in the external world (in the mainstream academia). AFAIK that's unlikely to happen. Not because of Prause, but because of top 100 universities from https://www.timeshighereducation.com/student/best-universities/best-universities-world . Friendly advice: don't conflate my POV with Prause's, and don't conflate Prause with top 100 universities. These universities are NoFap's big problem, not me or Prause. I'm not in charge of Prause, and she is not in charge of top 100 universities.

It is an extremely lame idea that I would be responsible for NoFap's image problem. Even if I would try to skew this article in NoFap's favor, I would receive a topic ban. Wikipedia admins are merciless when it comes to WP:ARBPS. And we like it this way. That's right, Wikipedia admins don't believe in freedom (WP:FREE), they believe in science. This isn't a free speech website: never was, never will. Rhodes and Wilson have a constitutional right to free speech outside of Wikipedia. Wikipedia is private property of a US charity and their may not invoke this constitutional right, it does not apply here. A lawyer who would tell them they have free speech inside Wikipedia needs Risperidone.

The tragedy of NoFap is that they are fighting against global systems (the global system of mainstream science, the system of a global crowdsourced mainstream encyclopedia). Me and Prause are their patsies, they have to blame somebody for their failure to convince Wikipedia, instead of realizing they are pissing against the wind. They have the same attitude as Trump: if they fail at something, it is always due to the fault of their enemies.

People who push the POV that dopamine produces addiction are quacks or cranks. By default Wikipedia does not consider such people competent to write WP:MEDRS. See e.g. https://www.theverge.com/2018/3/27/17169446/dopamine-pleasure-chemical-neuroscience-reward-motivation : the myth of dopamine=pleasure has been debunked. Also, the idea that a neurotransmitter or neuromodulator has the same effect, regardless of which neurons it hits, is puerile. Tgeorgescu (talk) 08:51, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

Here's one more example of what we hear everyday, "I feel like the next Sir Isaac Newton or Leonardo da Vinci. Since I quit a month ago, I've literally: started a business, taken up piano, been studying French every day, been programming, drawing, writing, started managing my finances and I have more awesome ideas than I know what to do with. My confidence is sky-high. I already feel like I can talk to any girl! I am the same guy who took 2,5 extra years to graduate from college because of procrastination and depression."

— TEDxGlasgow, in Gary Wilson, The great porn experiment, Gary Wilson

Sorry to debunk their favorite myth, but any shrink will say that is the talk of a manic-psychotic. My two cents: that guy renounced taking his pills, switching instead to the "NoFap therapy"; this explains the recovery of his erectile function: some medicines used in psychiatry could block the capacity of having erections. The acceptance of the claim that masturbation caused his psychosis was part and parcel of his delirium. In the 21st century, among more or less educated people, the belief that masturbation produces mental illness is part and parcel of thought disorder. Yup, masturbation made me bald/sick is delirium; it is a reason to prescribe antipsychotics. I became ill due to masturbation is a symptom of psychosis.

Wikipedia is bound by WP:COPO to regard NoFap as quackery. All editors who do not toe this line will get topic banned. I mean, it is not just me against them, it is the whole system of Wikipedia against them. If I catch COVID and die, the system of Wikipedia will still be here, it will remain intact. And everybody will still have to toe the line that NoFap is quackery, or at least to not misbehave in this respect. They would be in a position similar to those who seek to publish detox woo in Nature (journal) or PNAS. We're in no position to overthrow the medical consensus, see WP:CHOPSY. The purpose of Wikipedia isn't fomenting a fundamentalist revolution in sexology. We side with mainstream sexologists, not with fundamentalists. As long as you live in a free country, you're free to disagree with mainstream medicine; Wikipedia simply does not have that liberty. The basis of Wikipedia is kowtowing to mainstream science and mainstream history. You may disagree with our choice, but that's what Wikipedia is. It is you who have a choice, Wikipedia doesn't.

I'm not fair in general/in abstract/in a moral void. I play fairly, according to WP:RULES and it is fair only according to WP:RULES. If you disregard WP:RULES, of course I don't play fairly at all, I am then just a wiki-dictator. Our definition of fairness is obedience to WP:RULES. If you remove WP:RULES from fairness, then I am just a vicious bully. So, in order to understand what fair play means for Wikipedians, you have to understand the norms and values of this website. Otherwise your concept of fairness might not be what Wikipedians understand as fairness. So, if you are inclined to think that I am an unprincipled troublemaker, you have to revise your understanding of our norms and values. I am perfectly integrated into this social environment, so if you think that I am not, you don't understand Wikipedia. So, while I am not primarily concerned with NoFap, I am pretty thorough and diligent at addressing violations of our norms and values. According to our norms and values, NoFap is advocacy for pseudoscience, and we will keep saying it in big shinny letters. As I have stated previously, Wikipedia does not have any other choice in this respect. According to WP:N this article cannot get deleted and according to WP:ARBPS Wikipedia has to say that NoFap is pseudoscience. These are the rules every Wikipedian has to obey, including Jimbo Wales insofar he edits Wikipedia. And in this simplicity lies its greatness: every editor has to obey the same WP:RULES. These conclusions do not rely solely upon my judgment but upon norms and values which are broadly accepted by the Wikipedia Community. Gary Wilson thinks I'm their enemy, when in fact Wikipedia is their enemy, since WP:ARBPS onwards. Since then, Wikipedia has become a machine for lambasting quackery and pseudoscience; I am not saying that's all what Wikipedia is, but certainly it is something which Wikipedia is. The aims of the Wikipedia Community and of the NoFap community are at odds. And what harmony has Christ with Belial? There can be no harmony between Wikipedia and NoFap. Principally seen that's quite impossible. For Wikipedia is it logically impossible to produce a friendly article about NoFap, and this has nothing to do with me or Prause. There is simply a long-standing and profound enmity between Wikipedians and Nofappers, and it is none of my or Prause's fault. The two groups simply do not share the same assumptions about mainstream science and about the medical orthodoxy. If you want to know more, written from the POV of our enemies, see http://wikipediawarning.com/unbiased-the-truth-about-the-healing-arts-on-wikipedia/ As Orac (David Gorski) stated, Quacks really hate Wikipedia.

In the long term, reasoned argument and good quality sources works, hysterical accusations of bias and malfeasance simply get you shown the door.

— Guy Chapman

Wikipedia can never speak well of something based upon self-diagnosis and backed up by shoddy science. In the world which Wikipedia speaks for, self-diagnosis is always wrong. For Wikipedia, self-therapy based upon self-diagnosis is doubly odious, and that won't change anytime soon. DSM-5 declared at this time there is insufficient peer-reviewed evidence to establish the diagnostic criteria and course descriptions needed to identify these behaviors as mental disorders. So: there are no consensual diagnostic criteria and no consensual way to treat porn addiction if those criteria already existed. The difference is that at the meetings of Alcoholics Anonymous alcoholics do not play doctor with each other (I mean it literally). Support group is OK, pseudo-doctor isn't.

So, here is the deal: if you think that I am a POV-pusher, anyone could fill out a request at WP:AE for getting me topic-banned because of violating the conditions of the pseudoscience arbitration case. If that arbitration enforcement request fails, that means that the Wikipedia Community endorses my edits and that I am a bona fide editor of this article. Tgeorgescu (talk) 13:55, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

YBOP complained about [3]. What do I have to say? My previous statement: In the end I have to remind everyone that the judgment of Tgeorgescu isn't binding. [4] is binding. If you have a problem with that, fill a request at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment. The decision is clearly logged at Wikipedia:Arbitration enforcement log/2020#Pseudoscience—it was not something done in secret.

YBOP complained about [5]. What do I have to say? WP:PARITY applies, it's a website guideline, i.e. It is a generally accepted standard that editors should attempt to follow, though it is best treated with common sense, and occasional exceptions may apply. Any substantive edit to this page should reflect consensus. When in doubt, discuss first on the talk page. Tgeorgescu (talk) 04:42, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

The explanation is really simple: NoFap and YBOP bear the mark of the fringe. Neither me nor Prause could apply the mark of the fringe on our own. If we did, we would be kicked out this website. Again, NoFap and YBOP's problem is with the scientific community and with the top universities of the world, not with me and Prause. I am attacked for being an exponent of the Wikipedia system and Prause is attacked for being an exponent of the scientific community. So what NoFap and YBPO seek to attack are the scientific community and Wikipedia, since Wikipedia always kowtows to the scientific community. Defending Science with Eugenie C. Scott - Conversations with History on YouTube affirms that K12 teachers don't have academic freedom. Wikipedians are (mostly without knowing) in the same state of lacking academic freedom, see WP:NOTFREESPEECH and WP:FREE.

Dopamine has something to do with motivation, but claims that dopamine rushes produce addiction are way into WP:FRINGE/PS territory. See https://www.healthline.com/health/dopamine-addiction Tgeorgescu (talk) 19:44, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

My advice to Wilson is: stop citing research published in predatory outlets and/or non-mainstream journals. Citing such research does not bolster his case, if anything, it says that the opponents of porn are intellectually impotent to publish in mainstream scientific journals, the journals that matter to AMA, the two APA, and WHO. And, no, letters to the editor aren't WP:MEDRS-compliant sources, they are regarded as unsubstantiated opinion. What happens in those letters? A non-expert in the field (say an outsider) criticizes all experts in the field for having adopted the wrong methodology (essentially for not being simpletons). Tgeorgescu (talk) 17:58, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

Yes. We are biased.

Jimmy Wales, founder of Wikipedia, once wrote:

"Wikipedia’s policies ... are exactly spot-on and correct. If you can get your work published in respectable scientific journals – that is to say, if you can produce evidence through replicable scientific experiments, then Wikipedia will cover it appropriately.

What we won’t do is pretend that the work of lunatic charlatans is the equivalent of 'true scientific discourse'. It isn’t.[6] [7] [8] [9]"

So yes, we are biased.

We are biased towards science and biased against pseudoscience.
We are biased towards astronomy, and biased against astrology.
We are biased towards chemistry, and biased against alchemy.
We are biased towards mathematics, and biased against numerology.
We are biased towards medicine, and biased against homeopathy.
We are biased towards venipuncture, and biased against acupuncture.
We are biased towards solar energy, and biased against esoteric energy.
We are biased towards actual conspiracies and biased against conspiracy theories.
We are biased towards cargo planes, and biased against cargo cults.
We are biased towards vaccination, and biased against vaccine hesitancy.
We are biased towards magnetic resonance imaging, and biased against magnetic therapy.
We are biased towards crops, and biased against crop circles.
We are biased towards laundry detergent, and biased against laundry balls.
We are biased towards augmentative and alternative communication, and biased against facilitated communication.
We are biased towards water treatment, and biased against magnetic water treatment.
We are biased towards mercury in saturated calomel electrodes, and biased against mercury in quack medicines.
We are biased towards blood transfusions, and biased against blood letting.
We are biased towards electromagnetic fields, and biased against microlepton fields.
We are biased towards evolution, and biased against creationism.
We are biased towards holocaust studies, and biased against holocaust denial.
We are biased towards the sociology of race, and biased against scientific racism.
We are biased towards the scientific consensus on climate change, and biased against global warming conspiracy theories.
We are biased towards geology, and biased against flood geology.
We are biased towards medical treatments that have been proven to be effective in double-blind clinical trials, and biased against medical treatments that are based upon preying on the gullible.
We are biased towards astronauts and cosmonauts, and biased against ancient astronauts.
We are biased towards psychology, and biased against phrenology.
We are biased towards mendelism, and biased against lysenkoism.

And we are not going to change. Tgeorgescu (talk) 21:49, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

Huberman's claim

WP:REDFLAG: no plausible mechanism, since sperm does not eliminate much testosterone:

A man urinates on average 374 nmol testosterone during 24 hours. The average seminal testosterone level is 47 ng/100 mL. So during 24 hours an average man urinates the testosterone from 65653 ejaculations.

Other grounds for a red flag:

• https://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/325418#masturbation-and-sex-drive

• https://www.healthline.com/health/masturbation-and-testosterone

• https://theconversation.com/nofap-can-giving-up-masturbation-really-boost-mens-testosterone-levels-an-experts-view-157701

• https://web.archive.org/web/20130303134438/http://themodernsavage.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/02/testosterone_chart.gif

Accordingly, the claim is WP:EXTRAORDINARY. So unless Huberman means something like you have a peak of testosterone in the 7th day of abstinence, but it flops down to normal in the 9th day, I don't see how his claim could be rendered in the article. tgeorgescu (talk) 14:31, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

Andrew Huberman is affiliated with Stanford University and has a reputation to maintain as a highly reputable expert in neurobiology. It is simply not credible to say that he would post pseudoscience, when his entire channel is devoted to communicating the highest quality evidence available. Also for those who say there is "no mechanism", Huberman states earlier in the podcast that ejaculation increases prolactin, which is proven and established as the mechanism for the refractory period in men. Prolactin has an inverse relationship with testosterone and dopamine which is also robustly established. Hence, his claim cannot be considered extraordinary. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.20.153.38 (talk) 14:02, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

If there is high-quality evidence for the claim, it will presumably have been covered in a reliable, secondary source. You should direct your efforts toward finding such sources. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 14:12, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

So I assume the reference in the same paragraph by Paula Hall, which is simply a vast evidential claim from a HuffPost article with no corresponding sources cited, should also be removed? User:Lentax2

Nope, WP:PARITY applies to fringe/pseudoscientific claims. WP:MEDRS applies to medical claims stated in the voice of Wikipedia.

So, you see, NoFap vs. the medical orthodoxy is not a level playing field. Not in the real world of science and not inside Wikipedia. The rules for debunking pseudoscience are not the same as the rules for making medical claims.

Huberman is not the only one who can read peer-reviewed papers. Others have done it and stated the evidence for that claim is missing.

But it is rather a trivial task: if Huberman has read WP:MEDRS-compliant sources which show a link between abstinence and testosterone level, show us the sources he has read in order to proclaim such purported scientific fact. Scientific journals are not like Freemasons, who have taken an oath of secrecy.

While I was familiar for years with the claim of the spike in testosterone level the 7th day of abstinence, yesterday I heard for the first time that a professor takes seriously the claim that abstinence leads to a permanent high level of testosterone. Most of the sources which I have read stipulate the contrary: the more one is masturbating or having sexual intercourse, the higher the testosterone level, or claim there is no evidence either way.

So, wikt:hic Rhodus, hic salta, reveal his sources unto us. tgeorgescu (talk) 21:07, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for your clarification. However, your binary categorisation (NoFap v medical orthodoxy) seems to fall away with a highly respected Stanford University Professor making claims which are supportive of 'abstinence' - not, please note, the NoFap movement. Just because a piece of evidence is supportive of the claims of a particular community does not automatically mean it falls outside of 'medical orthodoxy'. Huberman's case is an excellent example - his entire reputation, and the specific and explicit unique value of the podcast referenced, is built on an adherence to working within established scientific opinion. Please also note that the claim was not isolated; in his evidence review, Huberman's judgment of the scientific literature is that testosterone is not impacted by ejaculation and is heightened during sexual activity, contradicting certain 'NoFap' opinions. He fully recognises it is a complex picture and states so in that episode of the podcast. Unlike many NoFappers, he actually indicates a mechanism for abstinence derived increase in testosterone: lower prolactin levels. I think these views should be included to support balance here. User:Lentax2

That was my impression all along: that it is a complicated correlation. Anyway, this article is about (i) the claim that there is porn addiction, (ii) the claim that the medicine against porn addiction are 90 days of complete abstinence and (iii) a social group built around the first two assumptions. About (i): while I don't think the diagnosis of porn addiction will get accepted, I do allow for the possibility that porn OCD (or something like that) will be accepted as a diagnosis. This article is neither about abstinence, nor about testosterone levels. The website policy bans original research and this article is not a WP:COATRACK for claims about abstinence and testosterone level. tgeorgescu (talk) 18:31, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

References

Scientific training

By scientific traning we mean something like a PhD. AFAIK, Wilson was neither psychologist, nor MD, nor sexologist by training. And he only published once as far as indexed by PubMed, that was in MDPI, which Wikipedia does not regard as being WP:MEDRS-compliant publisher. That article has itself a tenuous history, it was first retracted, then published in a top scientific publisher, after the other authors rejected Wilson's conclusions. tgeorgescu (talk) 18:54, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

Why Wilson's crusade against porn? Remember he and his wife were instructors of karezza. Wilson filled the internet with propaganda against orgasms. His reasoning was that porn leads to orgasms, and having orgasms is something extremely bad for you. He was a true believer in the badness of the orgasm.

Recently, I've been involved in a series of debates over on The Good Men Project magazine with Gary Wilson and Marnia Robinson, two self-proclaimed sexperts who (based on their writings around the blogosphere and Marnia's newly published book) seem to believe that orgasm is the root of all evil. [10]. Garnia have a very wierd take on sexuality. If you look at Marnia Robinson's books, especially her "Cupid's Poison Arrow", you'll see she basically believes that orgasms are deadly to human sexual relations and perhaps even to the human body itself. Thaddeus Gregory Blanchette, October 23, 2011 at 7:45 PM. tgeorgescu (talk) 10:41, 14 August 2021 (UTC)

1.0 out of 5 stars Orgasms are not bad for you!

Reviewed in the United Kingdom on 20 March 2018 In essence, Marnia Robinson believes that: 1. Orgasms are bad for you and should be avoided since hormonal fluctuations after orgasm result in emotional ups and downs which create disharmony between couples. 2. Daily gentle caressing without orgasm is good for you since the resulting stable hormone levels promote bonding and harmony between couples.

She is completely wrong. Orgasms are not the cause of all life’s problems; they are not cupid’s poisoned arrow. They are a joyful, healthy, normal part of sex and a gift for lovers to enjoy.

The book contains: - 300 pages of text supporting her belief drawn from (mainly her own) experience, science, religion and the writings of Alice Stockholm and William Lloyd –two advocates of Karezza (non orgasmic sex) - 50+ pages of caressing exercises including non-orgasmic intercourse.

The author is sadly mistaken. Her analyses in the two areas I am most familiar with, science and Christianity are fatally flawed.

She misinterprets the few studies on endocrinology (body chemistry) of human orgasm. Changes in hormone levels after orgasm do affect mood to some extent. But for most of us these are far less significant than hormonal changes during the female monthly cycle and menopause, and as we get older.

She ignores mainstream Christianity completely, using only quotes from heretical gnostic writings to support her argument. The contemporary Christian view is that God created sex, including orgasm, for reproduction and enjoyment within marriage, and that he did a good job!

Are there any positive takeaways from this book? Perhaps more cuddling and caressing would be helpful for most couples, particularly as we get older or experience lower levels of libido.

— Live4EverUK, Amazon.com

A more reliable source: Donaldson James, Susan (9 July 2012). "Karezza: Men Say Best Sex Comes Without Orgasm". ABC News. Retrieved 14 August 2021.

“As my husband says, 'My limbic brain stays enchanted because I don't attempt to fertilize you.'” from Salon (2015) source quoted in the article. tgeorgescu (talk) 05:30, 15 August 2021 (UTC)

Onanophobia

My two cents are that NoFap is systematized onanophobia. But there are no WP:RS about it. tgeorgescu (talk) 09:08, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

Bias

This article has obvious bias against NoFap making them seem pseudoscientific and anti free speech (Alexander Rhodes even says that porn should be legal under free speech). Oroheit (talk) 06:48, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

You have been served with WP:GOODBIAS upon your talk page.

According to the Terms of Use [11] is binding. Unless you can overturn it, you have to cheerfully obey that administrative decision. That's your duty under the Terms of Use.

This is not Debatepedia, so we're not debating if NoFap is or isn't pseudoscience. The Gordian knot has been cut by an administrative decision. This talk page is not the venue for overturning it. If you want to overturn it, state what you want to state at WP:ARCA. Till it is overturned, all Wikipedians have to work under the assumption that NoFap is pseudoscience. That is their legal duty according to the Terms of Use.

I do not write WP:RS upon pseudoscience, I am not admin, so I have no authority to change this real situation. Even if I would wholeheartedly agree with you, I lack the authority to make the label of pseudoscience any less binding for this article.

Your sole remedy is to fill a request at WP:ARCA so that the article NoFap will be removed from the purview of WP:ARBPS. AFAIK, your desired outcome is highly unlikely to happen. Why? Because ARBPS decision comes from the highest court of Wikipedia and it is established practice for many years. And Jimmy Wales supported it explicitly at WP:QUACKS. The Arbitration Committee will never pass a motion that psychiatric self-therapy based upon self-diagnosis is anything else than pseudoscience. Lobbying for a diagnosis of porn addiction has been going on for years and AMA and the two APA are not buying it. Just count how many parliaments of US states have passed resolutions that porn is an emergency. See https://www.governing.com/archive/gov-pornography-public-health-crisis-states.html Such states put moral and political pressure upon AMA and the two APA, while the only sort of currency these professional organizations accept is empirical evidence. If you know a thing about psychiatry, you know that it shuns cheap moralizing and dislikes like hell becoming a servant of partisan political aims.

Morals: Discretionary sanctions aimed against pushing pseudoscience are applicable to editing the article NoFap and I lack authority to overturn such administrative decision.

I'm simply not authorized to remove the text The Arbitration Committee has authorized uninvolved administrators to impose discretionary sanctions on users who edit pages related to pseudoscience and fringe science, including this article.

Provided the awareness criteria are met, discretionary sanctions may be used against editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process.

I was singled out by Wilson as the boogeyman, but in fact we are many and we are a hive mind. Wikipedia is a sleepless Gorgon. Like the Lernaean Hydra, if one of us gets silent, the others will take his/her place. Meaning: if I were alone I would be easy to defeat, but nofappers fight against the system of mainstream science, against the system of medical orthodoxy, against the system of Wikipedia Community. tgeorgescu (talk) 01:54, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

NoFap is pseudoscience

If the discretionary sanctions are not rescinded, NoFap remains pseudoscience, as far as Wikipedia is concerned. tgeorgescu (talk) 17:33, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

My main concern is not NoFap. NoFap is peanuts. My concern is that Wikipedia should not be used as a venue for WP:SOAPBOXING for sexual pseudoscience. tgeorgescu (talk) 17:18, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

Owen Wilson

@SirJaxon: I don't know who this Owen Wilson is supposed to be. The person discussed in the article is called Gary Wilson. G-A-R-Y, not O-W-E-N.

Deleting information about Gary Wilson because he would be Owen Wilson is one of the most preposterous edits ever made.

Further, Front. Psychol. is "possibly predatory" according to Beall's List, and not indexed for MEDLINE. According to WP:MEDRS, that matters. tgeorgescu (talk) 10:53, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

The proposed text also seemed to misrepresent the sources it cited. "There is no conclusive scientific support for the belief that not masturbating provides any medical benefit." does not reflect the source (quote): "Masturbation is a normal and harmless sexual practice that can be part of a healthful sex life. It even offers some health benefits." Then the editorializing "However, it is important to recognize that this lack of support is due to insufficient research into the matter." Actually, other than a religious taboo, it is only in the presence of certain psychiatric or medical conditions that it can be a possible concern to one's health. Valid ethical and legal concerns still exist, like if the exploitation or disturbance of other people is involved. —PaleoNeonate – 13:40, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

Agree, it is just that with other forms of sexual activity, health, ethical and legal problems are even worse. Since pornography is a solution which is available to poor people, rich people having extra options, for better or worse. So, condemning pornography excessively hurts the poor, not the rich. There are many websites with free (gratis), legal porn. Of course, these encourage their clients to pay for content, but if the client does not want to pay, they may watch porn for as long as they want. tgeorgescu (talk) 23:21, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

Rank pseudoscientist

According to WP:PSCI Wikipedia has the mandate to tell that Gary Wilson was a rank pseudoscientist. We cannot dodge this mandate.

About his educational competence: he had some experience as teacher at a community college, but he was no expert in pedagogy, since he never got anything like a doctorate. He never attended more that a couple of courses in pedagogy: teachers are not educated to become experts in pedagogy.

So the claim one of the country's leading experts on raising boys is WP:CB.

Oh, yeah, this is another person called Gary Wilson. WP:FRANKIE. Same as I am not the historian called Tudor Georgescu. Or many other people called the same.

So this article is about the Gary Wilson who was an anti-porn guru, and has never finished college, it is not about the Gary Wilson who has published at Oxford University Press.

AFAIK the discussed Wilson never claimed to have graduated from college or university. tgeorgescu (talk) 07:50, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

Founder of the subreddit

Is there a reliable secondary source that mentions Alexander Rhodes as the founder of the subreddit? The closest I found was a New York Times article, but the issue there is that it says, "He created a discussion forum on Reddit on the topic of abstaining from masturbation and pornography." It doesn't explicitly say he founded r/nofap. Thanks.FlantasyFlan (talk) 21:35, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

References

Doe vs. Azeff

IP, there is indeed https://dockets.justia.com/docket/pennsylvania/pawdce/2:2022cv00101/286204 , but that fails according to WP:OR upon WP:PRIMARY sources and according to WP:BLP. Since there are no RS to be found on Google, we cannot render it for a fact. tgeorgescu (talk) 15:07, 27 March 2022 (UTC)

New study: Manosphere

"The manosphere is a fragmented group of digital communities promoting misogynist discourses. [...] Amongst all of the communities of the manosphere, NoFap can be considered as the more conservative" https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/14680777.2021.1998185 Worth adding? Strawberrycerealbat (talk) 17:38, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

Yup, go ahead. tgeorgescu (talk) 18:25, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

Wilson

A recent edit removed any mention of Gary Wilson from the lead, which used to describe him as the source of "purported science behind the group's activities". The body still describes him as the group's "mentor". Both cite "The New Censorship: Anti-sexuality Groups and Library Freedom", but it does not appear to verify the claims. Are there other sources out there that attest to Wilson's importance to the group? Firefangledfeathers 03:48, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

Providing quote for WP:V:

The two most popular gateways into this community are Fight the New Drug (FTND; https://fightthenewdrug.org) and Your Brain on Porn (YBP; https://www.yourbrainonporn.com). ... YBP cites the work of Gary Wilson, an Oregon man with no scientific training or background, who has made a career peddling pseudoscience and speaking about pornography addiction (Ley 2016; 2018; Hickman et al. 2016; Hamblin 2016).

— Brian M. Watson, op. cit.

David J. Ley has stated on Twitter that Gary Wilson has never finished college, and that Wilson taught anatomy in a school for massage therapy. So, Wilson never was a professor, or anything comparable to that.

And, yes, the LDS Church thinks that Wilson was a hero (although he was apparently atheist). Fight the New Drug thinks that Wilson was a hero. NoFap official tweets depict Wilson as a great hero. Perhaps these are WP:PRIMARY sources, but still true. tgeorgescu (talk) 14:35, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

Could we tweak the article language to match the secondary source, pending any new finds? Something based on Watson might be "Some of the group's beliefs cite the work of Gary Wilson, an anti-pornography activisit who has no medical or scientific training. Wilson's work is pseudoscientific." I would support something along those lines in the body to replace the current content, and removal from the lead, unless there are more BLP-compliant sources. Firefangledfeathers 16:33, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

@Firefangledfeathers: Yes, please do it. I can edit "professionally" when things are clear-cut, but I leave judgments of nuance unto others. tgeorgescu (talk) 09:58, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

@Firefangledfeathers: You removed the entire empirical reference to Gary Wilson. Reducing the reference to his crazy karezza religion is one thing, but his role in NoFap is in peer-reviewed science. That was too much to cut. I restored it. Silverberrycomposer (talk) 19:46, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

@Silverberrycomposer: Please find a better formulation of his role. As such is unverifiable in the source given. Just tweak the wording and that will do. I.e. we know he is their mentor, but the source does not say it. tgeorgescu (talk) 19:54, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

@Tgeorgescu: Two peer-reviewed sources name "Gary Wilson" as the source of NoFap scientific claims. Watson and Hartman both do. Hartmann goes into tremendous detail about how heavily NoFap relies on Wilson's fraudulent scientific claims https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.1177/1363460720932387 OwDOnimEDGENiORmyTErentea (talk) 00:54, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

Okay, with that extra source: point granted. tgeorgescu (talk) 03:29, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

@Ehsanbasafa: Wilson's mission in life was opposing the scientific consensus upon pornography and masturbation. He hated orgasms in any way, shape, or form. tgeorgescu (talk) 14:38, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

DSM-5-TR

Friends, DSM-5-TR is coming in March 2022 and I'm afraid YBOP/TGPE/NoFap are going to get creamed once again by APA. People in the know, e.g. Nicole Prause, say that DSM-5-TR, the Bible of psychiatry since March 2022, does not buy into sex addiction, porn addiction and CSBD. tgeorgescu (talk) 08:51, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

I'm glad to hear that. Considering the fact that most (if not all) websites and YouTube channels devoted to anti-masturbation and anti-porn addiction propaganda owned by far-right religious fundies and conservative Bible thumpers are entirely political in nature, it will be only a matter of time for everyone to realize that these people and their unsubstantiated claims have nothing to do with neuroscience, addiction medicine, clinical psychology, or psychiatry. GenoV84 (talk) 10:34, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

@GenoV84: Seen how many people avoid Covid-vaccination in Romania and Bulgaria, I doubt they will ever come to their senses. As they say, there is one born every minute. tgeorgescu (talk) 01:35, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

@Tgeorgescu: I didn't know that they were also drifting towards the anti-vaccination movement. To me, it looks like a lot of crank magnetism goes on within the far-right. GenoV84 (talk) 01:44, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

@GenoV84: According to https://www.ocls.ca/eresources/psychiatry-online DSM-5-TR will be available 18 March 2022.

People in the know might be under embargo to tell what it includes, but they are certainly not under embargo to tell what it does not include.

E.g. if I tell what Harry Potter does not include, I don't violate its copyright/embargo. I may freely tell that it does not include a meeting between Churchill and Stalin. Why? Because that's not part of the books, so it does not have copyright. An author cannot claim copyright for something they have never written. tgeorgescu (talk) 03:27, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

This means that the scientific debate thereupon has been closed until the 2030s. tgeorgescu (talk) 19:10, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

ASAM

They like to bring in ASAM. What does ASAM really say about this?

https://www.google.com/search?q=site%3Aasam.org%20pornography&client=firefox-b-d

https://www.google.com/search?q=site%3Aasam.org%20masturbation&client=firefox-b-d

Which is not much. tgeorgescu (talk) 01:44, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

Why are conservative Christians so frustrated and constantly preoccupied with other people's sex lives, instead of focusing on their own? I mean, they have never been successful in preventing people from having sex or masturbating in the last 2000 years, yet they have devoted their lives to attempt to stop them... which is rather disturbing. GenoV84 (talk) 01:57, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

@GenoV84: Agree, if they are too much focused on preventing sex and masturbation, they should be declared legally insane. It is sheer insanity to pretend that porn fries your brain cells. Such people belong in a lunatic asylum. Disclaimer: it is not my business to diagnose them and I'm not commenting about editors. This should not be construed as medical advice.

Telling teenagers how to avoid STDs and pregnancies, I'm okay with that. But masturbation is normally speaking the most moderate and benign sexual activity. tgeorgescu (talk) 05:18, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

@Tgeorgescu: Definitely. If only they could drop that medieval obsession with Abrahamic nonsense about the exclusively procreation-oriented taboo, STDs and opportunistic infections wouldn't be so widespread and common in the Western world that they claim to love so much. Everyone would benefit from a better understanding of human sexuality through sex education, especially the youth. GenoV84 (talk) 10:54, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

@GenoV84: The same people who fight against homosexuality as being unnatural and against human nature are themselves ferocious fighters against human nature. It makes little sense.

Note to the reader: this does not violate WP:NOFORUM, since the dialogue has produced till now ten WP:RS and three extra leads to WP:RS.

I.e. verifiable claims have been made, all we have to do with phrase those for inclusion in the article, and about DSM-5-TR, we just have two wait a couple of months and one week.

And, to tell you the truth, even when I was a Bible thumper, I had nothing against masturbation. Why? Because it is not mentioned in the Bible. And I had noticed that the Bible includes erotica. So how could the Bible be against erotica? So, yes, I was following the Word of God, not the teachings of men. My trust was in the Bible, not in the theologian, not in the preacher, not in the pastor, not in the elder. To tell it frankly, it is impossible for a pastor to avoid contradicting the Bible. tgeorgescu (talk) 10:39, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

I guess that sending waves of multiple contradictory revelations to a bunch of warmongering goat herders and illiterate Iron-Age Semitic tribes in the forgotten deserts of the Middle East is not exactly what Abrahamic theists consider as the best plan for salvation that their supposedly all-knowing and all-powerful God could come up with.... yet here we are. GenoV84 (talk) 12:40, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

@GenoV84: Yup, even Sharia law does not punish masturbation. And we, Western people, generally see Sharia law as something extremely harsh and irrational. tgeorgescu (talk) 04:59, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

@Tgeorgescu: That's true, masturbation and viewing pornography are considered to be immoral acts and minor sins in Islamic jurisprudence but there is no punishment prescribed for these behaviors, as far as I know. Unfortunately, Islamic anti-masturbation propaganda and "porn addiction"-based arguments are also widespread on the internet and look very similar, if not identical, to those propagated by conservative Christian websites. Creepy stuff. GenoV84 (talk) 21:03, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

Lede

Darthmaulethuitpapillons has removed the last line of the lead paragraph a couple of times now, with long edit summaries that don't shed much light on why. I'm having trouble understanding why they feel that the relatively uncontroversial and attributed statement that the movement is part of the "manosphere" is objectionable. I've invited them to explain and find consensus here. Acroterion (talk) 12:33, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

They complain that it would be biased. This reminds me of how cdesign proponentsists complain that the article intelligent design is biased. Of course it is biased, see WP:GOODBIAS.

Further, Infante's paper is not indexed for PubMed, let alone MEDLINE. He states Internet pornography has become the ‘crack cocaine’ of pornography among males in this generation and as such presents a danger of epic proportions to the health and well-being of the adolescents and men who have been embroiled in pornography addiction.—which is pretty extreme language. DSM-5-TR (published March 2022) does not recognize a diagnosis of porn addiction. tgeorgescu (talk) 19:19, 14 April 2022 (UTC)