Talk:Pornography addiction/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Video attached to this article is misleading

The first video, by Prause, contains misleading statements to the press based on her primary research that has been heavily critiqued: "‘High desire’, or ‘merely’ an addiction? A response to Steele et al." http://www.socioaffectiveneuroscipsychol.net/index.php/snp/article/view/23833/32589

Just as concerning, this entire TV interview with Prause relies on a finding from her study that *contradicts her statements to the press*. I've transcribed that portion:

"Reporter: "They were shown various erotic images, and their brain activity monitored."

Prause: "If you think sexual problems are an addiction, we would have expected to see an enhanced response, maybe, to those sexual images. If you think it's a problem of impulsivity, we would have expected to see decreased responses to those sexual images. And the fact that we didn't see any of those relationships suggests that there's not great support for looking at these problem sexual behaviors as an addiction."

The written story under the TV window has a section on the UCLA press release that says essentially the same thing:

"If they indeed suffer from hypersexuality, or sexual addiction, their brain response to visual sexual stimuli could be expected to be higher, in much the same way that the brains of cocaine addicts have been shown to react to images of the drug in other studies,' a UCLA press release on the study explained."

And yet, that did not happen."

But it did happen! The study DID show a higher amplitude P300 for the erotic images, compared to the other images. So what Prause says in the video doesn't match her study results.

I am removing it. Please don't put it up again without addressing these concerns.Chrislyte (talk) 18:22, 1 August 2014 (UTC)Chrislyte

Here's the relevant statement from Prause's study on subjects who had answered an ad about their problematic internet porn use:

"Also, the P300 mean amplitude for the pleasant_sexual condition was more positive than the unpleasant and pleasant_non-sexual conditions."Chrislyte (talk) 18:50, 1 August 2014 (UTC)Chrislyte

Dr. Hilton is an anti-pornography crusader. For all I know he could very well be a biased hack. Tgeorgescu (talk) 17:05, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

Adding video gives large amount of additional weight to that area of the article. Unless the source(s) the video is discussing or illustrating are top quality MEDRS compliant sources and they represent a significant portion of content already in the article, I would not recommend including a video as it will create undue weight.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 16:34, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

Ok, then both videos have to be deleted. It would be a violation of WP:NPOV to keep only one of them. Tgeorgescu (talk) 16:37, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

Few credible references, links, or research

The information in this article lacks credibility. I'm researching this because I think I might have a pornography addiction and there's no reason for me to believe that pornography addiction is a problem. Some of the reference links lead to articles that have nothing to do with what it's referenced to. For example:

"Pornography addiction is a conceptual model assessing behavioral addiction characterized by compulsive, repeated use of pornographic material until it causes serious negative consequences to one's physical, mental, social, or financial well-being"

The references to this first sentence trace back to anxiety disorders. There's no evidence anywhere that this sentence is true. Some of the research is real and traceable. However some of the claims in this article are blunt, belligerent, and completely false.

In fact, much of the research on the Internet leads me to believe that people are writing articles on porn addiction with no credible research, reference, or education. It seems to me like females are writing this information to deter males from viewing pornography. Unless I'm in a relationship or experiencing criminal urges, there's no real reason to seek psychological help. This article needs more research on porn addicts themselves (quotes, statistics, etc.), and information on addiction centers that treat porn addicts.

People who are writing false information/articles are confusing me on what I really need to do. I'd like to read credible information so I can make a justifiable decision as to whether or not I need a therapist. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.54.45.135 (talk) 04:09, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

That's true: there is no medical consensus about this issue, so opinions are divided. It does not appear in DSM-5 which flatly rejects sex addiction and internet use addiction (including porn use) for lack of peer-reviewed evidence. It does not mean that it is proven it does not exist, but it isn't proven that it exists. Tgeorgescu (talk) 16:04, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

The APA isn't equipped to identify new disease states. Their diagnostic models are invalid (per the US govt, specifically the NIMH director) anyway and IMO their diagnostic classifications of addictions in particular are completely retarded, simply due to their characterization of addictions as dependence - that's literally wrong by definition and it implies that compulsion, addiction, and dependence are all the same thing. Their models aren't based upon any scientific evidence though, so it's not really surprising that they'd do that. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 09:23, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

Well, APA cannot jump to the science from one century later, they have to do with what is presently known. Note that there isn't a contradiction between DSM being a reliable diagnostic tool and seeking to develop new diagnostic insights. I think the state of psychiatry could be compared to the state of cancer research: scientists know a lot, but they are far from knowing all they wished they know. Simply because psychiatry and cancer are very difficult subjects spectacular progress is slow or absent. Tgeorgescu (talk) 18:29, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

In the past normal behaviors like masturbation and homosexuality have been pathologized, so APA is cautious in respect to pathologizing new behaviors. It is not only a scientific issue, it is a political issue too, because people could be stigmatized or medically repressed because they have different sexual preferences than other people (just think of all devices invented in order to "cure" masturbation). Tgeorgescu (talk) 18:35, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

17% above standard deviation treated as research result

The article currently says: "One study of a convenience sample of 9,265 people found that 1% of Internet users are clearly addicted to cybersex and 17% of users meet criteria for problematic sexual compulsivity, meaning they score above one standard deviation of the mean on the Kalichman Sexual Compulsivity Scale."

This is nonsense -- under any normal distribution, roughly 16% of cases are above one standard deviation from the mean, so on this basis one would find that roughly 16% of all people are problematic with respect to any given quantity, from calorie intake to height. If this is indeed a correct summary of the source (I couldn't find it online), then I would expect that there are other sources criticizing this absurdity, and they should be cited, too, or perhaps preferably the nonsensical statement and its source should be deleted. Joriki (talk) 07:31, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

Krueger's views

Quotes from Krueger rendered by the same source are either all reliable or all unreliable. We should not cherrypick. Either all he said remains in the article or all he said has to be deleted from the article. If the source is unreliable, then it is unreliable for all quotes provided therein. Tgeorgescu (talk) 00:12, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

Reference 5

...is a primary source describing one clinical trial. Since it is in the lead section, it probably needs to be deleted. Any objections? Best Regards, Barbara (WVS) (talk) 17:14, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

That paper is cited by PMID 24904393 and PMID 26393658, so those might support the statement. I'll check to see if they do later today; if neither can be used to support it, then the statement can be deleted per WP:MEDRS. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 15:04, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

On a related note, it's probably worth adding content from PMID 27114191 (temporarily available here) to the article since it's a recent systematic review. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 15:12, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

Problems with article

Firstly, it's only an opinion (POV) that adult entertainment is "obscene" and "disgusting", the word "pornography" dates from a period of time when people who sold birth control manuals were given prison sentences. I have had an active interest in the subject matter since the late 1960s and it has never "damaged" me. The IMDB website includes the adult industry on its database and Wikipedia has articles on Bangbros, etc. There are 100s of XXX subscription channels in existence, whether on satellite, cable or television. Let's give up on the blimpish prudery that runs through the fabric of this article. Dickie birdie (talk) 18:59, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

If anything, accessing Erotica has enriched my life and if the evidence of the hundreds and hundreds of channels and millions of websites is anything to go by, has also enriched the lives of millions of other people all around the globe. Dickie birdie (talk) 19:04, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

Predatory open access publishing

I have reverted a source from a predatory open access publishing, namely MDPI. It fails WP:MEDRS and it is an attempt to game the system. Tgeorgescu (talk) 21:30, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

Tgeorgescu Pubmed listed, peer-reviewed paper, with several neuroscientists has been blocked by user Tgeorgescu. On the other hand Ley et al, which is not on PubMed or Medline and was published in a journal that was on hiatus for 6 years before publishing Ley et al, is allowed. Gatekeeper wins. Truth loses. Nice job Gaborlewis (talk) 22:30, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

Evidence for being predatory:

with low publishing fees paid by authors or their institutions.

— http://www.mdpi.com/journal/behavsci

Jeffrey Beall (18 February 2014), Chinese Publisher MDPI Added to List of Questionable Publishers, Scholarly Open Access: Critical analysis of scholarly open-access publishing. Tgeorgescu (talk) 22:43, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

For more info see vanity press. Tgeorgescu (talk) 22:46, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

@ Tgeorgescu From the Wiki page on MDPI: It is considered a predatory open access publishing company publishing journals of dubious quality by Jeffrey Beall.[3] Following Beall's criticism of MDPI, the Open Access Scholarly Publishers Association (OASPA) conducted an investigation in April 2014 and concluded that MDPI continues to meet the OASPA Membership Criteria.[4]

You are are relying on a single blog post, by a single blogger to prevent the inclusion of a PubMed peer-reviewed paper. In opposition to your single 18-month old blog post is the Open Access Scholarly Publishers Association (OASPA), which has concluded that MDPI is not predatory and meets the OASPA Membership Criteria.

Evidence that issues put forth by a single blogger are resolved (excerpts from findings):

Investigations have encompassed review of internal correspondence at MDPI, detailed information on the handling of peer-review, decision making and reviewer reports, plus external comments, blogs and websites. Based on our findings we feel satisfied that MDPI continue to meet the OASPA Membership Criteria.

MDPI have been extremely cooperative throughout this process and have shared many documents and evidence of correspondence with the OASPA Membership Committee. We are grateful for their openness during this period.

It's clear that you tried to find anything to prevent the inclusion of this review. This is old news, and it has been resolved. I have lodged a formal complaint with Wikipedia. Gaborlewis (talk) 03:28, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

"Fees paid by authors" is the very definition of vanity press. Tgeorgescu (talk) 08:48, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

In order to assure you that I'm not here to game the system, I have opened a discussion at Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Vanity_press_or_MEDRS-compliant_source?. Tgeorgescu (talk) 09:10, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

Care should be taken with journals that exist mainly to promote a particular point of view. A claim of peer review is not an indication that the journal is respected, or that any meaningful peer review occurs. Journals that are not peer reviewed by the wider academic community should not be considered reliable, except to show the views of the groups represented by those journals

— WP:SCHOLARSHIP

Quoted by Tgeorgescu (talk) 18:38, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

Tgeorgescu is gaming the system on porn related Wiki pages

Tgeorgescu is gaming the system by blocking a PubMed indexed, peer-reviewed review of the literature related to the neuroscience of porn addiction. Tgeorgescu has blocked inclusion of this review based on 18 month old blog post has since been refuted by Open Access Scholarly Publishers Association. Furthermore, MDPI responded to Jeffrey Beall's allegations prior to the OASPA ruling. Since Beall had no response to MDPI, nor OASPA it must be assumed that there exists no official support for the blog post. Finally and most telling, Tgeorgescu has cited nothing specific to the Journal Behavioral Sciences, nor has Tgeorgescu refuted a single word of the review.

Further evidence that Tgeorgescu is gate-keeping both Effects of pornography and Pornography addiction is that he permits Ley, et al, which is not PubMed indexed, and published by a suspect Journal, Current Sexual Health Reports. The Journal Behan publishing in 2004, went on hiatus in 2008, only to be resurrected in 2014, just in time to feature Ley et al. It's well established that the Ley et al. editor, Charles Moser, has been a long-time vocal critic of porn and sex addiction, while David Ley is the author of the Myth of Sex Addiction. Ley et al has been exposed as nothing more than a biased an unsupported piece of propaganda

It must be stated that blogger Jeffrey Beall's opinion contains no more weight than any other Internet blogger. He has no official status in any organization that governs academic publishing. Beall has been roundly criticized for being judge. jury, and executioner, while being accountable to no one. A few of the Many scholar have critiqued Beall:

1) Parting Company with Jeffrey Beall

QUOTED "Since I first became aware of Beall’s List, however, I have been following some of Beall’s work with growing unease. Here and there some (to me) distasteful political ideology peeked through (with my pragmatic mindset, any kind of ideology makes me queasy), but you don’t have to agree with somebody all the time to agree with them some of the time. But now, in a recent screed, he has crossed the line."

2) Should We Retire the Term “Predatory Publishing”?

QUOTED "Beall’s List has been controversial since its establishment for a variety of reasons, some of them obvious (no publisher, whether legitimate or not, appreciates being publicly branded a “predator”), and some of them less so. One of the more subtle reasons for the controversy around Beall’s List lies in the fact that it focuses entirely on OA publishing. Predictably, this has aroused the ire of many in the OA community, who have accused Beall of targeting these publishers out of an animus towards OA itself—a charge to which Beall provided a fair amount of ammunition when he wrote an impassioned attack on the OA movement in the journal tripleC."

3) Beyond Beall’s List

QUOTED: Beall’s list has become a go-to tool and has even been featured in The New York Times,5 but it is not the final word on predatory publishing, partially because Beall himself has a complicated, and not entirely supportive, attitude toward OA in general. Another concerning aspect of Beall’s work is his evaluation of OA publishers from less economically developed countries. Crawford, Karen Coyle, and Jill Emery have all noted Beall’s bias against these publishers.10,11,12

4) Ethics and Access 1: The Sad Case of Jeffrey Beall.

QUOTED: I didn’t read all of Beall’s blog posts. I honestly don’t know whether the misleading items noted above are typical or special cases. As with most library folk, I was appalled when a publisher attempted to sue Beall for libel—but being sued for unfortunate reasons doesn’t automatically make the defendant a saint. As with a number of other people who’ve been involved with and writing about OA for years, I was growing increasingly nervous about Beall’s growing stridency about “predatory” OA publishers— and amazement that there never seem to be sketchy or predatory subscription publishers, even among those charging high page charges and other article fees.

5) A Response to Jeffrey Beall’s Critique of Open Access

QUOTED: Beall’s critiques of open access are not always as factual as they could be, so as an open access advocate I am concerned when his polemics are presented to an academic audience that may not know all the facts.

In summary, Tgeorgescu is basing his entire argument on a single blogger who has clear bias and who has been roundly criticized. The accusations by Beall against MDPI have been refuted or addressed by both MDPI and the OASPA. Most importantly, there exists no official Wikimedia statement banning MDPI studies. User Tgeorgescu proves his bias by accepting a review (Ley et al.) from a minor journal, which took a 6- yaer hiatus, has only publsihed for a few yaers is not PubMed indexed - yet he blocks this PubMed indexed review. The evidence is clear that Tgeorgescu is acting as the gate-keeper for porn-related Wiki pages.Gaborlewis (talk) 16:09, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

This was handled at Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_197#Vanity_press_or_MEDRS-compliant_source.3F. Tgeorgescu (talk) 21:00, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

Beall has removed the company from his predators list, but other reasons mentioned at WP:RSN still hold. The conclusion is that it isn't vanity press, but neither is it WP:MEDRS compliant. Tgeorgescu (talk) 22:21, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

As far as I can see ([1] and [2]), Behavioral Sciences isn't MEDLINE indexed. Tgeorgescu (talk) 19:40, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

Paraphilia

Medically seen, what the majority of men does cannot constitute paraphilia. Any row of arguments which concludes the the majority of men is psychiatrically abnormal can only be wrong. Tgeorgescu (talk) 18:07, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

This is hardly an original thought, so there should be WP:SOURCES making this point. Tgeorgescu (talk) 18:20, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

Indication that the majority of Norwegian population has been exposed to pornography: http://www.jstor.org/stable/pdf/3813653.pdf The study notes that the majority of the respondents have used pornography at least once in the previous 12 months. The sample is representative for the Norwegian population. Tgeorgescu (talk) 19:13, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

@Tgeorgescu: I agree that viewing pornography is not a paraphilia and I don't think any of the sources that are currently used in the article assert this. I'm not sure what statement(s) in the article you're referring to in this thread though. A Ctrl-F search for "paraphilia" only finds the paraphilia navbox. Do you want to remove this? Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 14:55, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

Well, pictophilia redirects to this article. Older sources considered it a paraphilia. Tgeorgescu (talk) 15:11, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

I've removed the pictophilia entry from {{Paraphilia}} and removed the navbox from the article. The pictophilia redirect should probably be listed for deletion at WP:RFD since this article is not an appropriate target for that redirect. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 15:16, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

I've listed the redirect at RFD: Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2016 August 3#Pictophilia. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 22:20, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, I agree. Tgeorgescu (talk) 22:53, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

I don't know what it's like in America, but XXX material in Europe can be bought over the counter in shops and supermarkets, that is bar coded. They also have open air Erotic Festivals in Europe. There is a different life outside of Wikipedia opposed to that given in Wikipedia. But then again, there are adult freedoms in Europe that are banned in the United States. Obviously the people who edit this article don't know much at all. Dickie birdie (talk) 19:20, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

Circles of the religious right

According to Ellen Laan the findings about pornography addiction arise from the claims made by religious right circles and such claims are unusual among sexologists. Tgeorgescu (talk) 01:34, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

Here is her CV. Tgeorgescu (talk) 01:37, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

References

Good point, those shrinks who belly-ache are usually churchgoers with moralist axes to grind. Gee, if only the editors of this Wikipedia article only knew what kinds of erotica are available in Germany and Holland - over the counter in shops. Dickie birdie (talk)

Sex supermarkets

Sex supermarkets were first established in Europe during the 1970s. Candid discussions about sexual matters on European television chat shows are without parallel in the English-speaking world. For example, following the accidental death of Conservative MP Stephen Milligan, those who practiced BDSM sexuality were invited to participate in television discussions on Milligan's hanging and accidental death.

Therefore, the existence of the subject matter of "Pornography addiction" is a cultural phenomenon that belongs largely to the English-speaking world. Nobody in Europe gives a damn about what people do that does not constitute criminal activity.

During the 1990s German satellite showed a documentary about a German priest who belly-ached about the existence of so-called pornography. The priest engaged in protests outside sex shops. The proprietors of the sex shop called the Police and the priest was apprehended by the German Police, led away and warned about breaching Public Order.

This difference in attitude towards erotic material in different countries and different cultures is missing from this article. Dickie birdie (talk) 07:44, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

This article is not a WP:COATRACK for the cultural issues around pornography, there are other articles which readily discuss that. This article is simply about the claim that there would be a pornography addiction, i.e. something not covered by the definition of the obsessive-compulsive disorder. OCD about porn is very rare, but it exists. The gist of the discussion is whether OCD diagnosis is enough for porn overuse, or there should be another diagnosis using the addiction model. Tgeorgescu (talk) 20:46, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

What Tgeorgescu has stated above is exactly right. The fact that there's a pathology/neuropsychological disorder related to pornography use is not itself an argument for the cessation of pornography use. E.g., many pharmaceuticals can induce an addiction, but these are still prescribed. Moreover, gambling, eating, and shopping are all associated with a unique form of behavioral addiction, but the potential for addiction to these stimuli is not an adequate justification for people stop eating food, spending money, or gambling responsibly. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 21:28, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

I'm not going to bust my gut arguing with you guys, but there is no issue over Evangelism. People preach religious rubbish all their lives and that is never described as an addiction. It only applies to sex. Not to skiing in the Alps 12 hours per day, not to compulsive cookery. Only applies to sex. Nobody has been "damaged" by having an interest in erotica. Nobody. Dickie birdie (talk) 14:22, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

Try claiming that Evangelism is "not" an obsessive addiction. Dickie birdie (talk) 14:28, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

This article needs WP:V statements regardless of whether or not pornography is truly benign. Regardless of the WP:TRUTH we need sources that say so. Sizeofint (talk) 14:53, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

Dickie, behavioral addictions are not exclusively sex-related. A "pornography addiction" probably isn't so much a disorder of pornography use as it is a disorder of compulsive sexual activity (i.e., people who compulsively view pornography while engaging in sexual activity are probably more correctly described as sex addicts who regularly view pornography when they exhibit compulsive sexual behavior). Viewing pornographic material is not addictive in its own right, but when this is combined consistently with sexual activity, which is addictive, it can and usually will become a classically conditioned operant reinforcer for sexual behavior (e.g., masturbation). In healthy people, this phenomenon isn't really that notable since the conditioned behavioral response from viewing pornography (i.e., engaging in sexual activity) can be overridden via inhibitory control. In sex addicts who regularly view pornography, this phenomenon makes pornography act as a behavioral cue (analogous to a drug cue) that triggers compulsive sexual behavior which can not be stopped by exerting inhibitory control over that behavior.
FWIW, I'm an atheist who uses pornography and doesn't give a shit about popular culture/opinion about this topic.

As for the lead sentence, you do actually need to cite a source to support the claim that you've been adding to the article. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 17:50, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

This is an article written by Wikipedia editors who are Blimpish Prudes. I have been accessing erotica since 1969 and it has never "damaged me" or anyone else I know. The whole concept of the subject matter is the creation of Blimpish prudery and nothing else. Not even one case example of anyone that has been "damaged" can be produced. Certainly not in the Wikipedia article. And yet the rubbish continues to exist. Brazzers, Reality Kings, Naughty America, Evil Angel, The Score Group - here are just a few examples that represent the tip of the iceberg. From this list of Adult Erotica Websites surely you could be able to draw a list of examples to substantiate the subject matter of "pornography addiction" - but somehow I don't think you will be able to. Because again I repeat the subject matter is a tenet of prudery and nothing else. Dickie birdie (talk) 19:09, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

xHamster is another example. By its own statistics this site has over 200,000 subscribers. It operates on a similar level to Facebook where users have friends and blogs. Users on the xHamster website can have thousands of friends, and each friend can have thousands of uploads. This is an example of hyperactive interest in erotica. And there are dozens more sites similar to xhamster. If accessing erotica on such a large scale is "damaging" (similar to editing Wikipedia, where certain editors spend large amounts of time working on articles) --- then surely there are masses upon masses of "damaged" people around the world. Except there is no such thing in existence. Accessing erotica is just another hobby and nothing else. It is certainly not "dangerous" and entirely harmless.

The prudery is stupid. Dickie birdie (talk) 19:16, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

I'm a blimpish prude. LOL Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 19:17, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

You adhere to the subject matter of this article, put your money where your mouth is, please back up your position by providing one case example. Dickie birdie (talk) 19:19, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

This reference supports what I said above about pornography functioning as a classically conditioned operant reinforcer (i.e., a behavioral cue) for sexual behavior. That's the only definitive claim that I've made so far on this talk page. A statement about this in the article (this lead sentence cited by ref #5) is supported by that reference. The article does not explicitly state anywhere that "pornography is an addictive stimulus", which would be equivalent to the assertion that "pornography addiction" is a real/established clinical disorder. In fact, the article makes the opposite claim, i.e., that there are no established diagnostic criteria to establish "pornography addiction" as a clinical disorder. Consequently, I don't see why you're so upset about the article text. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 19:30, 26 October 2016 (UTC)