![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 |
This article will be expanded to cover studies which have found that, in the United States, states which have higher rates of sexual assaults also have higher readership of pornographic magazines, and that rapists view pornographic material more frequently than the general public. Other important areas of expansion include findings that the legalization of pornography in some Scandinavian countries was not accompanied by an increase in the rate of sexual assaults, and that controlled studies predating Zillmann, Dolf: "Effects of Prolonged Consumption of Pornography", [1] have found that limited exposure to pornography over much shorter periods of time than examined in the Zillmann study was not correlated with variables suggesting an increased willingness to engage in sexual assaults or other adverse effects. Readers may evaluate the merits of the methodologies employed by various studies, and draw their own conclusions. John254 00:33, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
I have modified the introduction paragraph to better reflect the content of the page. The previous version, although stating that the current research was inconclusive, implied that more research indicated correlation between availability of pornography and sex crime. This is not true and is inconsistent with the body of the page which describes studies which together indicate the opposite correlation.
I have left the assertion that the current state of research is inconclusive, although to back this up, we really need to describe some research here which does indicate a positive correlation between crime and availability.
Also, the page is called Public Health Effects of Pornography but everything on the page so far is related almost exclusively to sex crimes. There is a brief reference to decreased sexual response, but I feel the article needs a lot more to fairly cover the topic. Other subjects that might be considered for inclusion here:
Are the first few sentences relevant to this article? it seems that validity should appear in an article on epidemiology, not here. 24.184.133.223 ( talk) 15:57, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
In think the article title, "Studies on effects of Pornography" will be more generic and will cover more topics. Bluptr ( talk) 12:44, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
Much of the content added by Bluptr is attributed to sources which do not meet the standards for reliability described in Wikipedia:Verifiability#Reliable_sources since they are not peer reviewed and are published by the anti-pornography advocacy website obscenitycrimes.org, which seems to have something of an axe to grind :) Therefore, I am removing the problematic material. Kristen Eriksen ( talk) 22:44, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
The edits which removed BBC, research organizations supported from governments, International Journals are not valid, nor is the removal of the lead. I will add them later, and needless to say, the same can be confirmed at the noticeboard. This article gives undue weightage to Kutchinsky... And applying the same analogy of the edit summaries of the ones I have listed above, Kutchinsky can easily be removed., but he is a reliable source and has a place in the article.
There is no way a research, survey can be removed, see Wikipedia:NPOV#Let_the_facts_speak_for_themselves which particularly addresses it...Let the facts speak for themselves...
Bluptr ( talk) 17:23, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
Per Wikipedia:Verifiability#Reliable_sources,
In general, the most reliable sources are peer-reviewed journals and books published in university presses; university-level textbooks; magazines, journals, and books published by respected publishing houses; and mainstream newspapers... Academic and peer-reviewed publications are highly valued and usually the most reliable sources in areas where they are available, such as history, medicine and science.
It is abundantly clear that much of Bluptr's content comes nowhere close to meeting the standards of source reliability articulated in our verifiability policy. An inordinately large portion of said content is referenced directly to obscenitycrimes.org, a non-peer-reviewed, partisan website, which is a reliable source only for the views of anti-pornography activists, and should not be cited for evidence of legitimate scientific research. All material that holds itself out as scientific research and is supported solely by references to obscenitycrimes.org should be excised from the article. A more difficult question is presented by quotations of medical professionals or law enforcement agents in mainstream newspapers. While such newspapers are generally reliable sources, such reliability extends only to claims which the newspaper has itself endorsed. Thus, when a newspaper reports that a professional has claimed that pornography produces certain health effects, we may not transform their representations of third-party claims into material on which the newspapers themselves have placed their imprimatur. Consequently, newspaper reporting of professionals' claims with no endorsement thereof should not be included in this article for the purpose of representing it as legitimate scientific research, since the reporting does not establish that the claims themselves have ever been endorsed by any peer-reviewed reliable source. Finally, theological publications, such as Christianity Today, are reliable sources only for religion, not scientific research. John254 18:53, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
Material that isn't legitimate research validated through academic peer review should not be dignified through characterization as "studies" :) Kristen Eriksen ( talk) 20:38, 3 January 2009 (UTC)Academic and peer-reviewed publications are highly valued and usually the most reliable sources in areas where they are available, such as history, medicine and science.
Now, it's no surprise that purveyors of bogus "research" would do anything other than submit their work for legitimate academic peer review, that they would rather provide it to a newspaper reporter or non-academic publisher totally unqualified to evaluate it. We, however, should refrain from republishing such deficient material. Kristen Eriksen ( talk) 20:57, 3 January 2009 (UTC)This process encourages authors to meet the accepted standards of their discipline and prevents the dissemination of irrelevant findings, unwarranted claims, unacceptable interpretations, and personal views. Publications that have not undergone peer review are likely to be regarded with suspicion by scholars and professionals.
First, there are two very important meta-analyses of pornography effects studies that are left out of this article, and I think have the point of calling the overall factual accuracy into question:
Basically, these are the largest scale reviews of pornography effects studies to date. Fisher & Grenier conclude there is no reliable behavioral correlation established. Malamuth et al conclude that there is a valid effect, but that its largely restricted to violent pornography in the most violent subset of men. Leaving out this later meta-analysis also has the effect of presenting Malamuth's views entirely based on his studies during the 1980s rather than the more modest claims he made as his research progressed.
Also, there are two very problematic sections at the end of the article. "Physical and psychological effects" – the first study, as I remember it, was more about explicit lyrics rather than pornography per se, and seems to be rather partisan take on the issue. Insofar as this study is even relevant to this article, it needs to be looked at in the context of similar studies (if they've been carried out) on the same topic. My suspicion is that this is a cherry-picked finding that may not reflect a larger body of research. The second piece of research dates back to the 1960s, and hence is date – has this finding been supported by later research? And the use of the term "perversion" is very loaded and POV.
The second section, "Prostitution" is largely based on one study by Melissa Farley, who's not exactly an unbiased source on the topic and who's methodology has been called into question. Also, use of the term "pornography" is decontextualized here – Farley defines the private photographing or taping of sex acts with prostitutes as "pornography". The vast majority of this material does not make its way onto the commercial pornography market, hence, the implication that porn performers are a significantly overlapping population with prostitutes (especially the highly marginalized prostitutes that are the subject of Farley's research) is inaccurate. Iamcuriousblue ( talk) 06:25, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
There was a lot of really odd wording about "lab experiments" in the section about Controlled Studies. It seemed disingenuous; it conjured images of people watching porn under supervision at some lab or classroom location and then taking a survey, or something of that sort. I got that impression especially from one of the quotes from one of the sources, where a lot of stuff was removed by an ellipsis. But from what I can tell, the actual complaint isn't the setting but not having choice of exposure duration, type, etc. From how the experiments were presented to me (in a psychology of entertainment media class), they would have at least allowed them to take the videos home to watch in whatever place they'd want; nothing as outlandish as what was implied. I've changed it to try to remove the focus on "settings", and more on the main idea of the argument of experimental imposition not matching effect due to selection. — AySz88 \ ^-^ 01:52, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
hawaii.edu <quote>Abstract:
A vocal segment of the population has serious concerns about the effect of pornography in society and challenges its public use and acceptance. This manuscript reviews the major issues associated with the availability of sexually explicit material. It has been found everywhere scientifically investigated that as pornography has increased in availability, sex crimes have either decreased or not increased. It is further been found that sexual erotica has not only wide spread personal acceptance and use but general tolerance for its availability to adults. This attitude is seen by both men and women and not only in urban communities but also in reputed conservative ones as well. Further this finding holds nationally in the United States and in widely different countries around the world. Indeed, no country where this matter has been scientifically studied has yet been found to think pornography ought be restricted from adults. The only consistent finding is that adults prefer to have the material restricted from children’s production or use.</quote> —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.152.104.229 ( talk) 18:49, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
It is apparent that we humans are subject to the dictates of our nature, that is somewhat different to all other forms of nature. We have evolved huge teeth namely the H BOMB and GUIDED WEAPONS, also large and most effictive hearing and sight - RADAR and MICRO TECHNOLOGY. We hve evolved these external to ourselfs . never the less we have evolved them. Now we are in danger of moveing into an even more worring evolution through the use of the internet. Mans inate and on the whole beneficial interest in sex is been perverted by the most intrusive pornography entering the subconscious and thus warping our evolution. It is interesting to note that much of the pornography on the internet is initialy free. Man above all creatures is most suseptable to conditioning, 80.6.6.117 ( talk) 14:56, 1 April 2011 (UTC) .
I expanded the lead of this article, per WP:LEAD, because "effects of pornography" is about more than pornography's effects on crime. Like another poster, in the #Changes to Introduction Paragraph section, stated above, it's odd that this article focuses primarily on crime. Thus, I added more to the article from a preexisting source and from another source going over other effects. A lot more should be added, though. This article should likely be divided into sections about the most prominent effects of pornography. I also reverted two text removals by an IP. My edits concerning all of this are here, here, and tweaks such as this. I don't believe that studies should be removed just because editors question the author's POV or expertise. All researchers have a POV about the topic they are researching. If the studies have been challenged by other researchers, proven inaccurate or scientifically discredited, then those sources should be produced alongside the discredited studies. 107.22.97.105 ( talk) 23:18, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
Research concerning the effects of pornography are broad.
If they wheren't this would be original research.
They include desensitization,
certification needed
sexual exploitation,
certification needed/What is exploitation? Rape, forced marriage, prostitution? Should be split into these categories.
dehumanization,
this word is unscientific, disgusting and offensive.
sexual dysfunction,
certification needed/What kind of dysfunction? Male or female?
the inability to maintain healthy sexual relationships,
certification needed/"healthy relationships" is highly unscientific.
and encouragement of human trafficking
certification needed
and pedophilic acts[citation needed].
certification needed/What exacly are pedophilic acts? Crimes?
Pornography's effects on crime have been inconclusive.
Not really. The vast majority of the scientific community sees no negative link between pornography and crimes.
Some studies support the contention that the viewing of pornographic material may increase rates of sexual crimes, while others have shown no effects, or a decrease in the rates of such crimes.
"Some" should be quantified and qualified if possible. Any thoughts? -- 84.132.80.170 ( talk) 23:11, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
IP and Avalongod, will you describe what you want done with this article so that we can take it from there? As I stated on my talk page, "I don't think that dividing the studies into 'controlled' and 'epidemiological' is the best idea. How will contributors always know if a study is one or the other and where to put it? Adding on to that, a lot of studies are only available to people as abstracts (unless they go that extra step to access them), which can therefore stifle their assessment of whether or not a study is 'controlled' or 'epidemiological.'" Flyer22 ( talk) 19:54, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
The recent (2012-04-13) edits by user John Foubert seem to be self-sourced. Besides that, they did change how the issue is presented to match their own published views on the matter, making these possibly POV edits. -- Enmoku ( talk) 10:42, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
A nice review of available scientific info which someone better than me should integrate, courtesy of society for scientific study of sexuality http://www.sexscience.org/dashboard/articleImages/SSSS-Pornography.pdf — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.244.38.161 ( talk) 22:21, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
The article fails to give the positive side of porn any real length. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.3.22.18 ( talk) 17:50, 6 August 2012 (UTC) http://www.samefacts.com/2011/06/crime-control/the-startling-decline-in-rape/ "The rate of forcible rape as reported on victimization surveys peaked in 1979 at about 2.8 per 1000 population (age 12 or older). In 2009 the rate fell to 0.5." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.3.22.18 ( talk) 17:49, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: moved per request as uncontested for a week. Favonian ( talk) 16:48, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
Social effects of pornography → Effects of pornography – The article started out and is still primarily about effects of pornography on crime rates and such. There is already information on effects to individual users in the article, and there would be no reason for a separate article on them. Editor2286 ( talk) 18:08, 26 July 2013 (UTC)
I alerted WP:MED to this article because it continues to be a POV mess on both sides (those sides being the ones who state that pornography has negative effects on people/is generally bad vs. those who state that pornography has positive effects on people/is generally good or is okay for the most part). The neutral stance is not so much of a problem. It does not appear that WP:MED is going to be any help on this matter, however. And, Drbogdan, I disagree with this edit, because, like I stated at WP:MED, that is supported lower in the article...including by the Among criminals and juveniles section. We don't need to be reporting one side of what studies state on that matter, as though there is some general consensus on it among researchers. There isn't. The fact is that, like that bit you removed stated, studies on the effects of pornography concerning crime and domestic violence have been inconclusive. But I'm not too concerned with this article (I don't need the added stress); I simply would like it to be accurate and WP:Neutral (keeping the WP:Due weight part of WP:Neutral in mind as well). Flyer22 ( talk) 02:40, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
It has been recognized that repeated use of any substance whether it be chemical or viewing material(i.e repeated TV viewing) to escape negative feelings can be mentally addictive. Please consider my reference to TV addiction. I am active on this topic being a member of the NoFap community on Reddit and feel passionately about the negative affects of porn on males< ref> /info/en/?search=Television_addiction</ref> RichardUK2014 ( talk) 15:05, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
Thus, groups of repetitive behaviors, which some term behavioral addictions, with such subcategories as "sex addiction," "exercise addiction," or "shopping addiction," are not included because 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.
Thanks for commenting on this guys, I believe it comes down to personality types, some people say food is not addictive but if people have depression or low self esteem and they know they have a source of pleasure they will reach for it out of habit even when they know it is not beneficial to do so. I will try and find a reliable source but I see some have been mention here already RichardUK2014 ( talk) 14:23, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
Not a forum or a soapbox - WP:SPA edits. |
---|
Factual claims backed by peer-reviewed research have been deleted The page was entirely reverted to the previous, outdated version. The editor's (Drbogdan) sole explanation was "it was better before." How can that be, when two new brain studies supporting what I said have come out in the last two months? Here's what I posted. It's factual, and you need to explain your actions, Drbogdan. +++ Pornography addiction is a debated[16] behavioral addiction characterized by compulsive, repeated use of pornographic material until it causes serious negative consequences to one's physical, mental, social, and/or financial well-being.[17][18] When researchers at Cambridge University compared brain scans of 19 compulsive porn users with brain scans of healthy controls, they found that compulsive porn users showed the same brain changes within the same brain structures as seen in pathological consumption of drugs. Also, "Sexual desire or subjective measures of wanting appeared dissociated from liking, in line with incentive-salience theories of addiction in which there exists enhanced wanting but not liking of salient rewards."[19] Interestingly, a recent study by German researchers at the Max Planck Institute found addiction-like brain changes in non-addicted porn users, which correlated with how much porn they consume and how many years they had been consuming porn. Specifically, the more porn the subjects used, the less gray matter in the striatum. Also, the connection between the striatum and prefrontal cortex worsened with increased porn watching. Moreover, the heaviest porn users had less response to sexual images, thus less "sexual desire."[20] There is no diagnosis of pornography addiction in the current Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (the DSM-5).[21] The DSM-5 never specifically considered internet pornography addiction as a diagnosis. However it rejected "hypersexuality" as a diagnosis because "there is insufficient peer-reviewed evidence to establish the diagnostic criteria and course descriptions needed to identify these behaviors as mental disorders."[16] Notwithstanding the current position of the DSM, the American Society of Addiction Medicine (thousands of addiction MDs and addiction researchers) has publicly stated that sexual behavior addictions are real, and fundamentally the same condition as substance abuse addictions.[22][23] A 2014 review, whose lead author David Ley wrote "The Myth of Sexual Addiction," concluded that high-frequency use of visual sexual stimuli "fails to meet standards of addiction", e.g. asserting that it can reduce unhealthy behaviors.[24] Scientists state that excessive pornography viewing can be unhealthy if it becomes problematic for an individual, including excessive time spent viewing pornography instead of interacting with others. Individuals may report depression, social isolation, career loss, decreased productivity, or financial consequences as a result of their excessive Internet pornography viewing impeding their social life.[25]+++ It appears that there is some "gate keeping" going on with respect to this page. If you're trying to keep out peer-reviewed studies by top addiction neuroscientists something is up. Please justify your actions. Chrislyte ( talk) 03:30, 30 July 2014 (UTC)Chrislyte — Chrislyte ( talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
FWIW - Thank you *very much* for the comments - @ Chrislyte - no, gatekeeping is not intended - reliably sourced material representing a consensus viewpoint, in some fair and balanced way, seems better if possible - @ Tgeorgescu - yes, I *entirely* agree with your comments re WP:MEDRS - better to present medical consensus in secondary sources, rather than primary ones - hope this helps in some way - Thanks again for the comments - and - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan ( talk) 12:23, 30 July 2014 (UTC) Chrislyte Secondary sources are certainly appropriate when there is a consensus. There is no consensus on the effects of pornography or pornography addiction. In fact, the two studies cited are the first ever fMRI studies published on porn users. The only secondary source cited opposing the concept of pornography addiction had as its lead author David Ley, the "Author of The Myth of Sex Addiction". It was published in an obscure journal, which had been on hiatus for four years. This contrasts to the two brain studies I cited by Cambridge University and the Max Plank institute. What's more the sentence associated with this review makes no sense.
This empty suggestion is that porn viewing cannot be addictive because the authors claim it reduces rape in certain individuals. Aside the questionable correlation between a decline in reported sexual offenses as porn availability has increased, this says nothing about whether porn is addictive. This sentence becomes laughable when juxtaposed by the Ley, et al. claim that porn use has remained steady for over 30 years. From page 2 - "VSS use does not appear to be increasing despite increased availability." Citing the Ley et al review as a secondary source is especially problematic as the authors misrepresented their original sources, and many citations had nothing to do with text. They also omitted/ignored nearly all studies that counter their claims. I request that when citing this review that both of you also cite Ley's original sources so that we can judge for ourselves whether the studies back up their claims. If you would like a genuine review of relevant studies consider this one by a German team, which completely contradicts the "review" put out by Ley, Prause and Finn. "Prefrontal control and Internet addiction: a theoretical model and review of neuropsychological and neuroimaging findings" ( http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24904393) From the review: "Most of the current articles on neuropsychological and neuroimaging correlates of Internet addiction conclude that this clinically relevant disorder should be classified as a behavioral addiction. We agree with this conclusion." The review covers all internet addiction studies, both porn-related and otherwise, and concludes that internet addiction is a behavioral addiction with subtypes that need to be differentiated, such as pornography, gaming and social media. The review explains further: "The results [of the review] converge to the view that an addictive use of the Internet is linked to functional brain changes involving parts of the prefrontal cortex, accompanied by changes in other cortical (e.g., temporal) and subcortical (e.g., ventral striatum) regions. Additionally, there are some hints for structural brain changes, which also involve parts of the prefrontal cortex. The functional changes in prefrontal and striatal areas are primarily observable when individuals with Internet addiction perform certain tasks, in particular those measuring executive functions and cue-reactivity. These results, together with those emerging from neuropsychological studies, suggest that prefrontal control processes are reduced in individuals who are addicted to the Internet and may be related to the patients’ loss of control over their Internet use. " The reviewers' conclusions are entirely in alignment with the two peer-reviewed studies on porn users' brains I cited. So it's evident where the true consensus is among addiction neuroscientists. Again, I don't see how you can justify removing carefully performed studies from two of the world's finest research institutes while featuring an irresponsible, one-sided "review" by authors with a demonstrable bias. This has to be gatekeeping at its most egregious. How do we appeal this action?— Preceding unsigned comment added by Chrislyte ( talk • contribs) 23:22, 30 July 2014 (UTC) — Chrislyte ( talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
So you still intend to gate keep and ignore the substance of my remarks, all of which are perfectly relevant to the title? Clearly these two new studies could not be more relevant to a Wiki page on "Effects of Pornography." Chrislyte ( talk • contribs — Chrislyte ( talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. — Preceding undated comment added 00:37, 31 July 2014 (UTC) Claims that liberalization of pornography in society may be associated with decreased rape need to acknowledge more recent conflicting evidence See, for example, "How to Lie with Rape Statistics: America's Hidden Rape Crisis" (2014) http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2404424 From this review: "Further, the corrected data reveal that the study period [the last 20 years] includes fifteen to eighteen of the highest rates of rape since tracking of the data began in 1930. Instead of experiencing the widely reported "great decline" in rape, America is in the midst of a hidden rape crisis. Further, the techniques that conceal rape complaints deprioritize those cases so that police conduct little or no investigation." Chrislyte — Chrislyte ( talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Effects on sexual function. Drbogdan cites popular article about masturbation (not porn), yet rejects study about porn users. Ley et al. review no longer valid. User Drbogdan has now added a NY times article as a reference for Effects on sexual function. This article had many opinions, so it is internally inconsistent. The quotes cited by User Drbogdan were about masturbation's effects on sexual performance, not Internet porn's effects. It has no place here. I can link to articles and books by urologists and sex therapists that say that porn induced ED exists. Is this the game you want to play? For example, Cornell Urology Professor, and Author of The New Naked, said in this article ( and in his book)
In addition to citing quotes about masturbation, not porn, User Drbogdan is attempting to keep peer-reviewed study by Cambridge neuroscientists from appearing. Recent Peer-reviewed research by Cambridge University team headed by Addiction neuroscientist Valerie Voon found erectile dysfunction in compulsive porn users that was caused by porn use. Quotes from the research:
Please note the wording in the first quote: "as a result of excessive use of sexually explicit materials". Not only do 60% of compulsive porn users have ED, they sate the ED is the result of porn use. This attempt to disregard peer-reviewed studies, yet cite random quotes about masturbation (not porn) within lay articles containing conflicting opinions, is disturbing. Does Wikipedia endorse such behaviors? Chrislyte ( talk) 15:40, 31 July 2014 (UTC)Chrislyte — Chrislyte ( talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
Sorry, but the NYT article was still there, as FN 10. Moreover, you didn't address the segment of the article quoted in the footnotes was about masturbation not "the effects of pornography".
Users Drbogdan & Tgeorgescu:
Dr. Krueger's statement was at least directly on point in terms of the misleading statements implying that the DSM had formally considered and "specifically rejected" internet pornography addiction. It never had, and Krueger's remarks as a DSM insider, were clarification of that. There's no consensus on the statement that there's no evidence of a link between ED and porn, so I'll revert. Enjoy! Chrislyte ( talk) 18:41, 1 August 2014 (UTC)Chrislyte — Chrislyte ( talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
Your statement is once again an attempt to conflate the effects of masturbation with porn use. The argument is that pornography use cause erectile dysfunction. The article says that masturbation does not cause ED. No one is arguing that masturbation causes ED. The quotes cited are about masturbation n NOT porn. This is clearly gate keeping by a few users. Chrislyte ( talk) 19:39, 2 August 2014 (UTC)Chrislyte I'm conforming the "pornography addiction" section to the Wiki page on "pornography addiction" as it seems wise to keep them consistent. Chrislyte ( talk) 18:31, 1 August 2014 (UTC)Chrislyte — Chrislyte ( talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. User Drbogdan is deleting peer-reviewed studies & hiding this by using ":Not a forum or a soapbox" User Drbogdan is inappropriately labeling the attempts to cite peer-reviewed studies as Not a forum or a soapbox - WP:SPA edits I have attempted to cite several peer reviewed studies. A 2014 was on rape stats. It was rejected without any valid reason. "How to Lie with Rape Statistics: America's Hidden Rape Crisis" (2014) http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2404424 From this review: "Further, the corrected data reveal that the study period [the last 20 years] includes fifteen to eighteen of the highest rates of rape since tracking of the data began in 1930. Two 2014 fMIR studies on porn users, by Cambridge university and the Max Planck Institute: 1) CAMBRIDGE - Neural Correlates of Sexual Cue Reactivity in Individuals with and without Compulsive Sexual Behaviours 2) MAX PLANCK INSTITUTE - Brain Structure and Functional Connectivity Associated With Pornography Consumption: The Brain on Porn In section "Effects on sexual function" User Drbogdan replaced the Cambridge study, and quotes by Urologists, with a NY Times article that contained quotes about masturbation not causing ED. These quotes have have nothing to do with the sexual effects of porn. This article has no place here. In addition to citing quotes only about masturbation (not porn), User Drbogdan is attempting to keep a peer-reviewed study by Cambridge university from appearing. The Cambridge University team was headed by Addiction neuroscientist Valerie Voon. Her stdudy found erectile dysfunction in compulsive porn users that was caused by porn use. Quotes from the research:
Please note the wording in the first quote: "as a result of excessive use of sexually explicit materials". Not only do 60% of compulsive porn users have ED, they sate the ED is the result of porn use. This practice by User Drbogdan to delte peer-reviewed studies, and replace them with irrelevant quotes quotes about masturbation (not porn) within lay articles quoting containing conflicting opinions, is a blatant attempt at censorship. The same goes for deleting the latest review of the literature studies on rape statistics is censorship. Hiding the debate on the talk page is a clear attempt at censorship. I have contacted Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chrislyte ( talk • contribs) — Chrislyte ( talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. 20:08, 2 August 2014 (UTC) User Drbogdan is deleting peer-reviewed studies & hiding this by using ":Not a forum or a soapbox" User Drbogdan is inappropriately labeling the attempts to cite peer-reviewed studies as Not a forum or a soapbox - WP:SPA edits I have attempted to cite several peer reviewed studies. A 2014 was on rape stats. It was rejected without any valid reason. "How to Lie with Rape Statistics: America's Hidden Rape Crisis" (2014) http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2404424 From this review: "Further, the corrected data reveal that the study period [the last 20 years] includes fifteen to eighteen of the highest rates of rape since tracking of the data began in 1930. The following 2014 fMIR studies on porn users, by Cambridge university and the Max Planck Institute, are also being deleted by user Drbogdan : 1) CAMBRIDGE - Neural Correlates of Sexual Cue Reactivity in Individuals with and without Compulsive Sexual Behaviours 2) MAX PLANCK INSTITUTE - Brain Structure and Functional Connectivity Associated With Pornography Consumption: The Brain on Porn In section "Effects on sexual function" User Drbogdan replaced the above Cambridge study, and quotes by Urologists, with a NY Times article that contained quotes about masturbation not causing ED. Obviously, these quotes have have nothing to do with the sexual effects of porn. This article has no place here. In addition to citing quotes about masturbation (not porn), User Drbogdan is attempting to keep a peer-reviewed study by Cambridge university from appearing anywhere in this Wiki article. The Cambridge University team of 11 neuroscientists was headed by Addiction specialist Valerie Voon. Her study found erectile dysfunction in compulsive porn users that was caused by porn use. Quotes from the research:
Please note the wording in the first quote: "as a result of excessive use of sexually explicit materials". Not only do 60% of compulsive porn users have ED, they sate the ED is the result of porn use. This practice by User Drbogdan deleting peer-reviewed studies, and replacing them with irrelevant quotes about masturbation (not porn) found in lay articles containing conflicting opinions, is a blatant attempt at censorship. The same goes for deleting the latest review of the literature on rape statistics. This attempt to hide the debate, and to delete peer-reviewed stduies is a clear attempt at censorship. I have reported this to Wikipedia. Chrislyte ( talk) 20:49, 2 August 2014 (UTC)Chrislyte — Chrislyte ( talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. |
{{
help}}
Seems
User:Chrislyte (
WP:SPA) has been unable to develop a
WP:CONSENSUS among editors for his/her edits of disputed material - and continues to add disputed material to the
main article without any agreement among other editors - such edits have been
reverted several times (
rv1,
rv2) in
order that the disputed material be discussed among editors - and some agreement reached before the material is added to the
main article - but to no avail - there has been no
WP:CONSENSUS for the material being added - seems to be a bit of
WP:OWN or related on the part of
User:Chrislyte for some reason - if possible, please help sort this all out - Thanking you in advance for your help with this - and - Enjoy! :)
Drbogdan (
talk) 21:02, 2 August 2014 (UTC)
If you cannot agree - and we don't expect that all editors will always agree, then the next step is Wikipedia:Dispute resolution Ronhjones (Talk) 22:12, 2 August 2014 (UTC)
{{
POV}}
templates have been added to relevant sections (including
Effects on sexual function and
Addiction) in the
main article to alert readers to the issue - hope this is *entirely* ok - please let me know if otherwise of course - Thanks again for your comments - and - Enjoy! :)
Drbogdan (
talk) 22:37, 2 August 2014 (UTC)Emily Witt's quote, footnote to the 'Effects on sexual function' section, is about the effects of masturbation and ejaculation, not visual stimuli, and is thus, in my opinion, unrelated. My first thought was to delete the footnote altogether, but after some thought I'm inclined to believe that a more thorough wording would be a better approach. Not sure how to address this, perhaps someone will feel like doing it. Corntrooper ( talk) 02:32, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
It would be better if the article would be more detailed on the nature of the pornography related to a given association, rather than the sweeping generalization, "pornography". Depending on whom you ask, "pornography" can be even pin-ups, such as the swimsuit edition of Sports Illustrated. There must be a whole gradation between that and chained tripe anal penetration with horses, and I can't believe it all leads to the same effects. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.18.17.180 ( talk) 01:59, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
According to WP:MEDRS, primary medical sources are rather unreliable for establishing objective facts which are to be stated in the voice of Wikipedia. I restored the maintenance templates indicating WP:MEDRS violations. Tgeorgescu ( talk) 01:38, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
I removed an external link to an undergraduate essay. It is full of value judgments, biased use of sources, etc. It is unrepresentative. You know, there are medicine teachers who oppose porn (such as Donald L. Hilton, Jr., MD), they could be cited instead of that undergraduate essay. I mean, these teachers are scientifically seen a tiny minority, but they are still notable for this debate. Tgeorgescu ( talk) 13:01, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
You know, I have online several of my undergraduate essays. How about inserting external links to these in 10-20 Wikipedia articles? How about every Wikipedian doing that? Tgeorgescu ( talk) 13:43, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
As seen here and here, I reverted Roshu Bangal ( talk · contribs) twice on adding Template: POV to the article, stating, "Per Template:POV, drive-by tagging is not allowed. Either make a case on the talk page or this tag will stay removed." and "Once again, you need to specifically point out problems you feel the article has on the article talk page. We are not mindreaders." Despite that, Roshu Bangal added the tag a third time.
Roshu Bangal, judging by your very first edit to Wikipedia, and your edits to Wikipedia since then, you are not a WP:Newbie. So you should be familiar with the WP:Edit warring policy. No matter how much you want the Template: POV tag to stay on the article, it will not be staying on the article unless you make a strong case for it here on this talk page. Flyer22 ( talk) 13:38, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
Note: Roshu Bangal ( talk · contribs) replied on my talk page about this. He should have obviously responded here on this talk page instead. And with this edit, The Anome reverted Roshu Bangal. Flyer22 ( talk) 03:00, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
About this
, yes and no (Update: clarification, this exact text needs not be in the lead, only in some form). Yes, thanks, it should not only be in the lead.
Pre WP:LEAD: "The lead should be able to stand alone as a concise overview. [..] The lead is the first part of the article most people read, and many only read the lead." and somewhere (I forget where), the guidelines say you should start with the article title, in bold (some leeway). The article's title isn't "Research concerning the effects of pornography".
Per WP:TITLE, I propose changing the title. Maybe "Disputed research into long term effects of effects of pornography". Or "Controversial research.." or something. If "long term" is missing, then the most immediate effect should stay in, and the only proven highly reliable result. Feel free to come up with a counter-proposal. comp.arch ( talk) 17:34, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
Notification to newbies: according to WP:MEDRS primary sources are rejected by default. Do not claim medical facts based upon primary research. Tgeorgescu ( talk) 19:25, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
with low publishing fees paid by authors or their institutions.
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
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.
A simple fact - Open access journals, which accept pay, are in fact accepted as sources on Wikipedia, including MDPI. Until you can demonstrate that MDPI studies have been blocked from Wikipedia, you are gaming the system (gate-keeping).
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."
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) 16:17, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
Here is a summary of the problem. I have no opinion on whether it passes WP:MEDRS, but it is certainly the learned opinion of an expert in addictions. Tgeorgescu ( talk) 21:02, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
"So when does it become an addiction?" That, of course, is a key question for researchers trying to understand pornography's dark side.
— Kirsten Weir, op. cit.
About this revert "Not WP:MEDRS-compliant; Got enough faulty sources in this article". Just not sure if either or both sources where considered "faulty".
The primary source: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1617155/ Image content influences men's semen quality
seems to be genuine research, and on one of the most reliable (immediate) effects of pornography. And explaining difference in effects. I find it very intriguing this sperm competition, that is known in non-human species, not really unbelievable that it also happens in humans. I must assume that the issue is with the other source that I quoted (that links to the primary source). I note that MEDRDS, says: "Primary sources should generally not be used for biomedical content". The point of MEDRS and WP:V (the general rule) is I think not to keep truth out. There was some other research also I was at the same time on nih.gov on this that I did not look into. comp.arch ( talk) 09:35, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
I have to admit that being published by the Witherspoon Institute is not exactly WP:SPS, but it isn't WP:MEDRS or WP:MEDASSESS either. W.I. is a conservative think tank and conservatives have an ax to grind against pornography, which makes it a polemical source. Anyway, there is no indication of independent peer-review of the article, so it basically fails the criteria outlined at WP:SOURCES and WP:IRS. According to WP:TWITTER the source may be used with attribution in order to describe the beliefs of W.I., but not for establishing objective facts for our encyclopedia. Tgeorgescu ( talk) 01:34, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
On that website I noticed that W.I. wants to overturn the First Amendment. Well, that's not traditional US conservatism, that's rather something like Tea Party conservatism. Tgeorgescu ( talk) 01:45, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
Or perhaps that's too radical for the Tea Party, too. Tgeorgescu ( talk) 01:50, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
Although at times effective for a little while, she continually found a re-stocked stash of pornographic materials, despite his promises to stop. Her distress and his inability to hear her distress reached such high levels that she had attempted suicide: thus her admission into the hospital and our meeting.
— Ana J. Bridges, Pornography's Effects on Interpersonal Relationships
Let's examine the facts: the wife did not satisfy her husband's sexual drive and she decided he wasn't even allowed to masturbate using pornography. When she found that he still used pornography, she attempted suicide. Any rank-and-file psychiatrist would consider that both her decision not to allow her husband to masturbate as well as her attempted suicide are proofs of severe mental derangement. She loathed pornography because she was severely mentally deranged. So the treatment would need to dismantle her obsession with pornography (obsession against pornography is obsession with pornography, albeit from a sexual purity compulsion). Bridges blames pornography for that attempted suicide, but she could as easily blame religiously fundamentalist brainwashing which produced the subject's severe loath for pornography. Why is pornography use the root of the problem, instead of religious brainwashing? This is begging the question that pornography is harmful, which to her makes sense because she starts from the unwritten assumption that religion cannot be harmful. Therefore the conclusions of her study are highly questionable. Tgeorgescu ( talk) 22:49, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
So, there are two ways of interpreting the data: blaming the porn or blaming the church. A more sophisticated way is blaming the tension between porn and church. Tgeorgescu ( talk) 13:08, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
Beall has removed the company from his predators list, but other reasons mentioned at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 197#Vanity press or MEDRS-compliant source.3F still hold. The conclusion is that it isn't vanity press, but neither is it WP:MEDRS compliant. Tgeorgescu ( talk) 22:25, 21 December 2015 (UTC)
I just reviewed this article and there is a lot of content about health sourced to non-MEDRS compliant sources. I was going to start trimming but I wanted to make sure that everybody is on the same page about the need for MEDRS sources to support content about health. Does anybody here disagree with that? Jytdog ( talk) 02:04, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
Tgeorgescu, regarding this, this and this, what are you arguing? I didn't look at the latest sources carefully, but, as you know, WP:MEDRS does accept review articles; WP:MEDRS prefers them. Flyer22 Reborn ( talk) 02:27, 29 July 2016 (UTC)
I reverted the title change by Jc37, who should have started a WP:Requested move discussion if he wanted this title changed. I reverted because I see no need for the article to have the longer "Research on the effects of pornography" title. What else would "effects of pornography" be based on if not research? It's not like it would make sense to have both an "Effects of pornography" article and a "Research on the effects of pornography" article. Furthermore, the sources state "Effects of pornography" or similar, not "Research on the effects of pornography." Flyer22 Reborn ( talk) 06:19, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
Jc37, I apologize if I came across as rude in my initial above post. I have tweaked the lead so that it better reflects the article title. I see that you also moved the categories to Category:Research on the effects of pornography and Category:Research on the effects of pornography; I think those should be moved back as well, but I can't move them back. Administrative powers are needed for that. Flyer22 Reborn ( talk) 06:55, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
I removed the 2012 review because it didn't seem to have much significance if the rest of the section was removed. I deliberately wrote "marked as unreliable" instead of "unreliable" to avoid suggesting that it was definitely a bad source. Regarding the 2014 ley review, I removed it because it's from a non-medline indexed journal which is in ill repute. Note that I also removed the 2015 review with opposite conclusions because it also was not medline indexed. I'm going to remove the 2014 ley review again for now, I would suggest you read and research it before reinstating it. XBiophagex ( talk) 03:47, 10 September 2016 (UTC)
I removed the rest of the paragraph because it doesn't regard the topic of the section: "Sexual function and addiction." It could be included elsewhere. XBiophagex ( talk) 04:04, 10 September 2016 (UTC)
People who are interested in researching this kinda stuff (not the nudge nudge wink wink type of researching) are obviously gonna focus on extreme behaviour and negative stuff. Boring research does not get funded or published. Outdated references should be removed, because times have changed and so has our perception of stuff like this. ((( The Quixotic Potato))) ( talk) 00:38, 4 February 2017 (UTC)
Here you can see some of the crap I removed:
There is a lot more crap that needs to be removed or rewritten. ((( The Quixotic Potato))) ( talk) 00:54, 4 February 2017 (UTC)
I also deleted the opinion of two Halifax psychotherapists, AFAIK that is not even a protected title in their province (so anyone can call him/herself a psychotherapist), and even if it would be then this would still be undue and not an RS. ((( The Quixotic Potato))) ( talk) 01:13, 4 February 2017 (UTC)
Doc James changed the lead. ((( The Quixotic Potato))) ( talk) 12:10, 4 February 2017 (UTC) Irrelevant rant: Personally I dislike the convention that stuff in the lead can be unreferenced because the references appear later in the article. This is personal preference, nothing more than my opinion which can safely be ignored, but I prefer having a footnote that directs the reader to the correct section and/or to the sources. ((( The Quixotic Potato))) ( talk) 12:10, 4 February 2017 (UTC)
I have removed the tags for now, the article has improved significantly. It isn't perfect, but it is in a lot better shape then it used to be. ((( The Quixotic Potato))) ( talk) 09:04, 11 February 2017 (UTC)
I found a sentence that says:
"Two 2016 neurology reviews found evidence of addiction related brain changes in internet pornography users."
I clicked on the references and they are talking about people with Compulsive Sexual Behavior and hypersexuals, not about the average internet pornography user.
If I change the sentence to something like:
"Two 2016 neurology reviews found evidence of addiction related brain changes in hypersexuals."
or
"Two 2016 neurology reviews found evidence of addiction related brain changes in people with Compulsive Sexual Behavior."
then it seems to be more relevant to an article about hypersexuality/CSB. Of course we do not know if CSB/hypersexuality are caused by pornography, and the title of this article is "Effects of pornography".
I propose moving the following sentences to Hypersexuality:
"Two 2016 neurology reviews found evidence of addiction related brain changes in internet pornography users. Psychological effects of these brain changes are described as desensitization to reward, a dysfunctional anxiety response, and impulsiveness.[3][4]"
I am not sure yet what to do about the sentence that immediately follows:
Another 2016 review suggests that internet behaviors, including the use of pornography, be considered potentially addictive, and that problematic use of online pornography be considered an "internet-use disorder".[5]
((( The Quixotic Potato))) ( talk) 12:42, 4 February 2017 (UTC)
Like I just stated on SlimVirgin's talk page, when explaining why I had not significantly improved this article and when asking if she wouldn't mind helping with it: After leaving this article two days ago, I immediately realized that we were focusing too much on what is WP:MEDRS-compliant, but that a lot regarding this topic has to do with social issues, which means that WP:MEDRS sources are not always required. I've also been clear above that there has not been much progress in the literature on the effects of pornography, the old references are still the current knowledge on this topic, and scholarly book sources cover a lot of what is in this article and all we need to do to improve the sourcing is replace the primary sources with tertiary and/or secondary sources. But in some cases, keeping primary sources is appropriate since there has not been much progress in this field.
The Quixotic Potato removed this and this, but the first is addressed in the Pornography addiction article, and other sources, and the latter is addressed in sources talking about the social aspects of pornography (for example, how women feel about their boyfriends and husbands viewing pornography).
We need to ask ourselves whether this article is mostly a medical, psychological or social article. Or if it's equally (or almost equally) all three. Do we use a WP:MEDMOS#Sections setup for it? Can a WP:MEDMOS setup work for it? Or do we set the article up in some other way? Flyer22 Reborn ( talk) 19:12, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
SlimVirgin declined to help fix up/expand this article. So I will be taking on the matter myself, keeping what I stated before and in this section in mind. And, yes, this means that most of the content is unlikely to be positive, but I will look for positive content on the topic. Flyer22 Reborn ( talk) 03:29, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
In social and behavioral sciences, medicine, etc., it is not the statistics which proves causality: causality is postulated by a theory and the data support or do not support its claim.
My photo could be used as evidence, for example, to determine if 1) the water was higher than last week or 2) the winter ice was gone 3) the boat race was on some other lake or 4) if aliens were waterskiing that day. But, until you advance some relevant theoretical claim a photo is just a photo—it is not “evidence.”
— Karl W. Giberson, My Debate With an ‘Intelligent Design’ Theorist
The gist is: in a theoretical vacuum the data are meaningless. So, I am highly skeptical of studies which claim to prove causality, since asserting causality belongs to the realm of theories, not to the realm of empirical findings. To put it briefly: theories assert causality and empirical studies are used to test theories. See #Association: Correlation does not imply causation. Tgeorgescu ( talk) 15:53, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
I have linked to Correlation does not imply causation, because many articles claim association, not causality. Tgeorgescu ( talk) 16:38, 10 January 2016 (UTC)
I would suggest that the 'Beliefs' section be entirely removed. It's overly wordy and deals with 30 year old material. The 2013 study is not a secondary source and the 2012 review is marked as unreliable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by XBiophagex ( talk • contribs) 04:45, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
Went ahead and did it, and removed some other content. XBiophagex ( talk) 22:39, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on Effects of pornography. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 06:35, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
@ Jane Burgundy: Where did you got that piece of information? Please clearly WP:CITE your WP:SOURCES for WP:VERification. But here is a quote for you:
Note that the word addiction is not applied as a diagnostic term in this classification, although it is in common usage in many countries to describe severe problems related to compulsive and habitual use of substances.
— DSM-5, p. 485
Quoted by Tgeorgescu ( talk) 12:10, 3 February 2019 (UTC)
@ Jane Burgundy: [7] violated both WP:NPOV and WP:LEDE. Not to mention WP:OR. Tgeorgescu ( talk) 00:27, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
@ Jane Burgundy: We don't have a pro-porn bias. Neither have we an anti-porn bias. We have a bias for mainstream science and for the medical orthodoxy, see WP:MEDRS, which you are expected to obey if you do not want to land in hot water. As stated at WP:LEDE, the lead section summarizes the article, so every claim has to be sourced, not necessarily in the lead section, but certainly somewhere in our article. Tgeorgescu ( talk) 01:29, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
@ Jane Burgundy: Don't despise talk pages, that's tendentious editing. You need to WP:COMMUNICATE. And... are you kidding me? Wright, Paul J.; Tokunaga, Robert S.; Kraus, Ashley (2015-12-29). "A Meta-Analysis of Pornography Consumption and Actual Acts of Sexual Aggression in General Population Studies". Journal of Communication. 66 (1). Oxford University Press (OUP): 183–205. doi: 10.1111/jcom.12201. ISSN 0021-9916. is not even indexed by PubMed, let alone MEDLINE, which is demanded per WP:MEDRS. I told you that you might get in hot water if you disobey it. And, yes, I am a neutral editor: some POV-pushers accuse me of being pro-porn, others accuse me of being anti-porn, and I cannot be both at the same time. AFAIK Wright, Tokunaga and Kraus are neither MDs nor psychologists (at least have no diploma in such professions, I could not find the fields of their Master's degrees—I could not find the field of Tokunaga's PhD, but at [8] he does not claim to be skilled/experienced in psychology). On PubMed: "J Commun Current ISSN: 0021-9916 (Print) Indexing Status: Not currently indexed for MEDLINE." So, why is their paper not indexed by PubMed? Has it been retracted? According to [9] the paper has been cited by only two other articles, including one article by the same authors (they have cited themselves), so it severely fails WP:USEBYOTHERS. Summary:
Therefore: this paper can safely be rejected for not matching the germane WP:PAGs. If you ask me, the Journal of Communication is a wholly inappropriate venue for revolutionizing the medical consensus in psychiatry and sexology. It's like discussing microprocessor architecture in a journal of infectious diseases. Neil Malamuth has compared porn to alcohol: it increases violence in a few people, not in most people; it makes most people more relaxed. According to crime statistics it is highly unlikely that porn increases overall sexual violence. Tgeorgescu ( talk) 19:01, 6 February 2019 (UTC)
@
Jane Burgundy: Make an educated guess about this graph:
.
Tgeorgescu (
talk) 04:05, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
@ Jane Burgundy: Let me help you: modus tollens. Precisely that same stuff that meant the decease of the myth "masturbation makes you blind". Tgeorgescu ( talk) 21:14, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
The above is a graph of the total number, i.e. not per 1000 inhabitants. Tgeorgescu ( talk) 22:04, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
No source, purely opinion, not necessary for balanced viewpoint. 71.188.51.163 ( talk) 13:31, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
Excuse me, do you consider BBC article, which hasn't any further associated source, as sufficient to hold the opinion in chapter 1?
<chapter 1> "In one meta-study by researchers at Middlesex University in England, over 40,000 papers and articles were submitted to the team for review and 276 or 0.69% were suitable for consideration due to the low quality of research within the field.[13]"
<BBC citation> "Earlier this year the UK children's commissioner asked academics from Middlesex University to review all the available evidence about the effect on adolescents. They excluded articles that had a very "particular ideological angle" or gave them a very low ranking - particularly if they also had methodological problems. They used a weight of evidence approach to rank the quality and relevance of the papers - and gave them a strength rating of high, medium or low.
More than 40,000 papers were submitted, but only 276 met their criteria." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:120B:C3DF:B130:A8A3:37EE:C709:5DC0 ( talk) 20:40, 6 June 2019 (UTC)
I am not the one who can judge if Neil Malamuth is pro-porn or anti-porn and this is not my point. It is not stated that he was involved in that particular meta-study, could you clarify why do you mention Malamuth? I am being worried only about that famous 40,000 papers meta-study. In my opinion, a regular press article - even if it is as respectable as BBC - is not suitable to be reliable if it has no further sources. It is also hard to track that study online, I could not find any report. 2A02:120B:C3DF:B130:462:53E6:5455:EE30 ( talk) 09:01, 7 June 2019 (UTC)
It is not consistent with what you have stated before in the talk regarding "effects of pornography". According to WP:MEDRS, the popular press is generally not a reliable source of information. Moreover, we can rate the Neil Malamuth opinion and - what is more important - quote him, based only on the quality of papers he has produced. Regarding a statement not being "a medical claim" - I cannot see a reason why we can use a statement (or rather - an opinion) just because it is NOT a medical claim. Because we apply so strict procedures to other types of source we can use on Wikipedia, it looks like a simple trick - a bypass - to release some information unconfirmed by the strict medical system. Hence, I doubt why <only> the opinion of - however respectable researcher - is used to hold the very important statement in the context of the chapter and of the whole document.20:41, 7 June 2019 (UTC) 2A02:120B:C3DF:B130:462:53E6:5455:EE30 ( talk)
This page currently has serious research, citation, and presentation problems. I'll just take it from the top and go from there.
The most important issue here is that this article should be rewritten in a way that differentiates between types of pornography, rather than lumping anything that could be classified as porn into one big "pornography" category. Internet pornography videos, pornographic books, porn pictures/magazines, etc are all widely different, with different effects, and should not be thrown into one basket as if they are identical. There is significant research to believe that internet porn videos in particular have far more potent effect on viewers than other types of what could be classified as pornography.
Moving on - Source 6 is a dead link. Source 7 is from 1973; over 45 years old and from before the internet existed. If it's kept, it should be in a section separate from internet pornography, and not left as a blanket for statements regarding all pornography. Source 8 has similar age problems to source 7, citing research as far back as 1965 and on average in the mid-1980s. This should also therefor also not be used to make blanket statements about all modern pornography. Source 9 cites an entire book - no page or paragraph is listed. Source 10 is also a dead link, but seems to want to link to research from the 1970s - again, well before the internet. Source 11 is a valid source, but it's one man's research, and is not enough alone to make a declaratory statement of the effects of all pornography. Source 12 has 2 main problems: 1) it's a single person's theory, not a scientific source. 2) It's dripping with political bias, attacking both the Nixon and Reagan administrations personally - this is not an objective source by any means.
For all of the above reasons, source 11 is the only source that should be kept in the article when referencing pornography as a whole. All the others (1-12) should either be tooled into a relevant section where they're applicable, or removed entirely. Sources 6, 9, 10, and 12 warrant total removal.
Next there's the "Zillman's Research" section. Firstly, this entire research is sourced from a dead link. Until a proper source can be given, this section should be removed entirely. Either way, sources 16-19 also have no links whatsoever. Source 19 is literally just a non-scientist feminist's opinion and should be removed, as well as the paragraph dedicated to it.
The Addiction section is alright for the most part, but should be slightly reworded to be more balanced in its presentation of information from both sides of the issue, especially since the research on what qualifies as "addiction" often varies.
The chart depicting the drop in rape rate is very misleading and should be removed as 1) Experts debate why sex crimes dropped between the 70s and 2000s, with most explanations not involving porn and 2) This drop in rape was not uniform across all countries where pornographic material went from mainly illegal to mainly legal. Edit5001 ( talk) 20:37, 12 October 2019 (UTC)
Someone should include that for npov. it seems to be include in this /info/en/?search=Pornography_addiction#Diagnostic_status Wikipedia article — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mehdi mohammed mahmoud ( talk • contribs) 00:44, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
A number of studies have found neurological markers of addiction in internet porn users,[19][20][21] which is consistent with a large body of research finding similar markers in other kinds of problematic internet users.[20] Yet other studies found missing, critical biomarkers of addiction,[22] and most addiction biomarkers have never been demonstrated for pornography.[23]
Hi. I edited this page (effects of pornography) last night to add content, increase currency and remove bias, including adding a significant number of quality references to scientific research, and you rolled back my changes. This was not appropriate. Please revert back to my last saved state so the page can continue to improve. UnicornRainbowMonkey ( talk) 21:56, 26 April 2016 (UTC)
There is increasing evidence that male exposure to porn changes brain chemistry leading to dopamine deficiency and other classic addictive responses that compound over time, and may be associated with depression and erectile disjunction in chronic users. There are also impacts on bonding with their partner, intimacy, and displaying committed behaviours as well as increased real-world infidelity. [1] [2] Studies have found that porn-free relationships are stronger, with less cheating.
There is evidence that porn use can cause relationship stress and may result in commitment problems and increased infidelity. [3] There is a rapidly increasing movement of "NoFap" men who are pledging to stop consuming porn and masturbating. Clinical observers say it's because porn addicts reach a physiological point related to brain chemistry where they can no longer "perform" with real women and pledge off porn to aid recovery (recovery time approx. 2 months in men 50+; 4-5 months in younger males).
References
"Obviously, if you were actually to fast from dopamine it would probably be fatal," [12]. "Dopamine serves many complex functions in the brain, and only kindergarten brain science describes it as an addictive drug." [13]. tgeorgescu ( talk) 06:29, 14 August 2021 (UTC)
According to WP:SCIRS, Cite reviews, don't write them. I am afraid this is being broken by the recent edits. tgeorgescu ( talk) 20:53, 12 October 2021 (UTC)
Basically, there are no empirical data about the impact of porn upon youth. Most studies thereupon are navel-gazing, instead of responsible statistical processing of empirical data.
E.g. this is a PhD research thereupon from the Netherlands: https://www.uva.nl/binaries/content/assets/uva/nl/onderzoek/promoveren/samenvattingen/2020/01/samenvatting-klaassen-marleen.pdf
Its conclusion: low statistical correlation
and causality cannot be shown.
See its precedent upon https://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2014/08/14/children-who-access-internet-porn-more-likely-to-have-sex-younger_n_7365794.html Miranda Horvath stated about this: "But it is not possible to establish causation from correlational studies, and to say whether pornography is changing or reinforcing attitudes." Source: https://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-22987051
Positive knowledge (as opposed to speculation or moralism) is extremely hard to come by, and to the extent that it exists, it does not support the bold claims of the moralists.
Or, as the biologist Steve Jones, Emeritus Professor of Genetics at University College London said about something else "a classic case of Arts Faculty science. Never mind the hypothesis, give me the data, and there aren’t any". tgeorgescu ( talk) 15:40, 16 October 2021 (UTC)
Claire97Reid, why did you create the
Effects of pornography on relationships spin-off article...when the Effects of pornography article is supposed to be about how "the effects of pornography on individuals or their sexual relationships depend on the type of pornography used and differ from person to person"? Yes, this article addresses violence and crime rates, but that is connected to relationships with others in addition to random interaction with others. So much of the material about the effects of pornography concerns the effects it has on others. relationships. Furthermore, the article you created also touches on the effects that pornography has on individuals. I fail to see why the article you created should not be merged with this one. Well, except for the fact that it needs significant cleanup.
Flyer22 Frozen (
talk) 07:02, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
Merger complete. --
Xurizuri (
talk) 07:02, 24 October 2021 (UTC)
Per Horvath, cited in our article, most studies about porn do not have the possibility of establishing causal relationships. So not necessarily a cause
is meant to dodge the fact that absolutely no cause is
known. I do not mean "guessed" or "suspected", but simply "known", as in
epistemology. If the cause cannot be honestly posited as validly inferred, it is not known. The mantra of all empirical scientists is
correlation does not imply causation.
tgeorgescu (
talk) 02:43, 28 November 2021 (UTC)
Wikipedia builds on sources, not opinions.I'm afraid that's not what the tobacco industry fought for:
correlation does not equal causationis what every MD learns in medical school. True 50 years ago and it is still true now. That mantra did not change a jot. If the scientific consensus is that causality has been shown, then Wikipedia renders it as fact. I'm in no position to second-guess the medical consensus.
For example, death by drowning strongly correlates with sales of ice cream sandwiches.tgeorgescu ( talk) 03:04, 28 November 2021 (UTC)
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 23 August 2021 and 8 December 2021. Further details are available
on the course page. Student editor(s):
Amyaris. Peer reviewers:
Ezacarias01,
Ageorgescu1698.
Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT ( talk) 20:16, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
I need some help to identify if I’m a person who consumes pornography excessively or not? 76.64.125.243 ( talk) 13:53, 11 February 2022 (UTC)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 |
This article will be expanded to cover studies which have found that, in the United States, states which have higher rates of sexual assaults also have higher readership of pornographic magazines, and that rapists view pornographic material more frequently than the general public. Other important areas of expansion include findings that the legalization of pornography in some Scandinavian countries was not accompanied by an increase in the rate of sexual assaults, and that controlled studies predating Zillmann, Dolf: "Effects of Prolonged Consumption of Pornography", [1] have found that limited exposure to pornography over much shorter periods of time than examined in the Zillmann study was not correlated with variables suggesting an increased willingness to engage in sexual assaults or other adverse effects. Readers may evaluate the merits of the methodologies employed by various studies, and draw their own conclusions. John254 00:33, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
I have modified the introduction paragraph to better reflect the content of the page. The previous version, although stating that the current research was inconclusive, implied that more research indicated correlation between availability of pornography and sex crime. This is not true and is inconsistent with the body of the page which describes studies which together indicate the opposite correlation.
I have left the assertion that the current state of research is inconclusive, although to back this up, we really need to describe some research here which does indicate a positive correlation between crime and availability.
Also, the page is called Public Health Effects of Pornography but everything on the page so far is related almost exclusively to sex crimes. There is a brief reference to decreased sexual response, but I feel the article needs a lot more to fairly cover the topic. Other subjects that might be considered for inclusion here:
Are the first few sentences relevant to this article? it seems that validity should appear in an article on epidemiology, not here. 24.184.133.223 ( talk) 15:57, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
In think the article title, "Studies on effects of Pornography" will be more generic and will cover more topics. Bluptr ( talk) 12:44, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
Much of the content added by Bluptr is attributed to sources which do not meet the standards for reliability described in Wikipedia:Verifiability#Reliable_sources since they are not peer reviewed and are published by the anti-pornography advocacy website obscenitycrimes.org, which seems to have something of an axe to grind :) Therefore, I am removing the problematic material. Kristen Eriksen ( talk) 22:44, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
The edits which removed BBC, research organizations supported from governments, International Journals are not valid, nor is the removal of the lead. I will add them later, and needless to say, the same can be confirmed at the noticeboard. This article gives undue weightage to Kutchinsky... And applying the same analogy of the edit summaries of the ones I have listed above, Kutchinsky can easily be removed., but he is a reliable source and has a place in the article.
There is no way a research, survey can be removed, see Wikipedia:NPOV#Let_the_facts_speak_for_themselves which particularly addresses it...Let the facts speak for themselves...
Bluptr ( talk) 17:23, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
Per Wikipedia:Verifiability#Reliable_sources,
In general, the most reliable sources are peer-reviewed journals and books published in university presses; university-level textbooks; magazines, journals, and books published by respected publishing houses; and mainstream newspapers... Academic and peer-reviewed publications are highly valued and usually the most reliable sources in areas where they are available, such as history, medicine and science.
It is abundantly clear that much of Bluptr's content comes nowhere close to meeting the standards of source reliability articulated in our verifiability policy. An inordinately large portion of said content is referenced directly to obscenitycrimes.org, a non-peer-reviewed, partisan website, which is a reliable source only for the views of anti-pornography activists, and should not be cited for evidence of legitimate scientific research. All material that holds itself out as scientific research and is supported solely by references to obscenitycrimes.org should be excised from the article. A more difficult question is presented by quotations of medical professionals or law enforcement agents in mainstream newspapers. While such newspapers are generally reliable sources, such reliability extends only to claims which the newspaper has itself endorsed. Thus, when a newspaper reports that a professional has claimed that pornography produces certain health effects, we may not transform their representations of third-party claims into material on which the newspapers themselves have placed their imprimatur. Consequently, newspaper reporting of professionals' claims with no endorsement thereof should not be included in this article for the purpose of representing it as legitimate scientific research, since the reporting does not establish that the claims themselves have ever been endorsed by any peer-reviewed reliable source. Finally, theological publications, such as Christianity Today, are reliable sources only for religion, not scientific research. John254 18:53, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
Material that isn't legitimate research validated through academic peer review should not be dignified through characterization as "studies" :) Kristen Eriksen ( talk) 20:38, 3 January 2009 (UTC)Academic and peer-reviewed publications are highly valued and usually the most reliable sources in areas where they are available, such as history, medicine and science.
Now, it's no surprise that purveyors of bogus "research" would do anything other than submit their work for legitimate academic peer review, that they would rather provide it to a newspaper reporter or non-academic publisher totally unqualified to evaluate it. We, however, should refrain from republishing such deficient material. Kristen Eriksen ( talk) 20:57, 3 January 2009 (UTC)This process encourages authors to meet the accepted standards of their discipline and prevents the dissemination of irrelevant findings, unwarranted claims, unacceptable interpretations, and personal views. Publications that have not undergone peer review are likely to be regarded with suspicion by scholars and professionals.
First, there are two very important meta-analyses of pornography effects studies that are left out of this article, and I think have the point of calling the overall factual accuracy into question:
Basically, these are the largest scale reviews of pornography effects studies to date. Fisher & Grenier conclude there is no reliable behavioral correlation established. Malamuth et al conclude that there is a valid effect, but that its largely restricted to violent pornography in the most violent subset of men. Leaving out this later meta-analysis also has the effect of presenting Malamuth's views entirely based on his studies during the 1980s rather than the more modest claims he made as his research progressed.
Also, there are two very problematic sections at the end of the article. "Physical and psychological effects" – the first study, as I remember it, was more about explicit lyrics rather than pornography per se, and seems to be rather partisan take on the issue. Insofar as this study is even relevant to this article, it needs to be looked at in the context of similar studies (if they've been carried out) on the same topic. My suspicion is that this is a cherry-picked finding that may not reflect a larger body of research. The second piece of research dates back to the 1960s, and hence is date – has this finding been supported by later research? And the use of the term "perversion" is very loaded and POV.
The second section, "Prostitution" is largely based on one study by Melissa Farley, who's not exactly an unbiased source on the topic and who's methodology has been called into question. Also, use of the term "pornography" is decontextualized here – Farley defines the private photographing or taping of sex acts with prostitutes as "pornography". The vast majority of this material does not make its way onto the commercial pornography market, hence, the implication that porn performers are a significantly overlapping population with prostitutes (especially the highly marginalized prostitutes that are the subject of Farley's research) is inaccurate. Iamcuriousblue ( talk) 06:25, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
There was a lot of really odd wording about "lab experiments" in the section about Controlled Studies. It seemed disingenuous; it conjured images of people watching porn under supervision at some lab or classroom location and then taking a survey, or something of that sort. I got that impression especially from one of the quotes from one of the sources, where a lot of stuff was removed by an ellipsis. But from what I can tell, the actual complaint isn't the setting but not having choice of exposure duration, type, etc. From how the experiments were presented to me (in a psychology of entertainment media class), they would have at least allowed them to take the videos home to watch in whatever place they'd want; nothing as outlandish as what was implied. I've changed it to try to remove the focus on "settings", and more on the main idea of the argument of experimental imposition not matching effect due to selection. — AySz88 \ ^-^ 01:52, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
hawaii.edu <quote>Abstract:
A vocal segment of the population has serious concerns about the effect of pornography in society and challenges its public use and acceptance. This manuscript reviews the major issues associated with the availability of sexually explicit material. It has been found everywhere scientifically investigated that as pornography has increased in availability, sex crimes have either decreased or not increased. It is further been found that sexual erotica has not only wide spread personal acceptance and use but general tolerance for its availability to adults. This attitude is seen by both men and women and not only in urban communities but also in reputed conservative ones as well. Further this finding holds nationally in the United States and in widely different countries around the world. Indeed, no country where this matter has been scientifically studied has yet been found to think pornography ought be restricted from adults. The only consistent finding is that adults prefer to have the material restricted from children’s production or use.</quote> —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.152.104.229 ( talk) 18:49, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
It is apparent that we humans are subject to the dictates of our nature, that is somewhat different to all other forms of nature. We have evolved huge teeth namely the H BOMB and GUIDED WEAPONS, also large and most effictive hearing and sight - RADAR and MICRO TECHNOLOGY. We hve evolved these external to ourselfs . never the less we have evolved them. Now we are in danger of moveing into an even more worring evolution through the use of the internet. Mans inate and on the whole beneficial interest in sex is been perverted by the most intrusive pornography entering the subconscious and thus warping our evolution. It is interesting to note that much of the pornography on the internet is initialy free. Man above all creatures is most suseptable to conditioning, 80.6.6.117 ( talk) 14:56, 1 April 2011 (UTC) .
I expanded the lead of this article, per WP:LEAD, because "effects of pornography" is about more than pornography's effects on crime. Like another poster, in the #Changes to Introduction Paragraph section, stated above, it's odd that this article focuses primarily on crime. Thus, I added more to the article from a preexisting source and from another source going over other effects. A lot more should be added, though. This article should likely be divided into sections about the most prominent effects of pornography. I also reverted two text removals by an IP. My edits concerning all of this are here, here, and tweaks such as this. I don't believe that studies should be removed just because editors question the author's POV or expertise. All researchers have a POV about the topic they are researching. If the studies have been challenged by other researchers, proven inaccurate or scientifically discredited, then those sources should be produced alongside the discredited studies. 107.22.97.105 ( talk) 23:18, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
Research concerning the effects of pornography are broad.
If they wheren't this would be original research.
They include desensitization,
certification needed
sexual exploitation,
certification needed/What is exploitation? Rape, forced marriage, prostitution? Should be split into these categories.
dehumanization,
this word is unscientific, disgusting and offensive.
sexual dysfunction,
certification needed/What kind of dysfunction? Male or female?
the inability to maintain healthy sexual relationships,
certification needed/"healthy relationships" is highly unscientific.
and encouragement of human trafficking
certification needed
and pedophilic acts[citation needed].
certification needed/What exacly are pedophilic acts? Crimes?
Pornography's effects on crime have been inconclusive.
Not really. The vast majority of the scientific community sees no negative link between pornography and crimes.
Some studies support the contention that the viewing of pornographic material may increase rates of sexual crimes, while others have shown no effects, or a decrease in the rates of such crimes.
"Some" should be quantified and qualified if possible. Any thoughts? -- 84.132.80.170 ( talk) 23:11, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
IP and Avalongod, will you describe what you want done with this article so that we can take it from there? As I stated on my talk page, "I don't think that dividing the studies into 'controlled' and 'epidemiological' is the best idea. How will contributors always know if a study is one or the other and where to put it? Adding on to that, a lot of studies are only available to people as abstracts (unless they go that extra step to access them), which can therefore stifle their assessment of whether or not a study is 'controlled' or 'epidemiological.'" Flyer22 ( talk) 19:54, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
The recent (2012-04-13) edits by user John Foubert seem to be self-sourced. Besides that, they did change how the issue is presented to match their own published views on the matter, making these possibly POV edits. -- Enmoku ( talk) 10:42, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
A nice review of available scientific info which someone better than me should integrate, courtesy of society for scientific study of sexuality http://www.sexscience.org/dashboard/articleImages/SSSS-Pornography.pdf — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.244.38.161 ( talk) 22:21, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
The article fails to give the positive side of porn any real length. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.3.22.18 ( talk) 17:50, 6 August 2012 (UTC) http://www.samefacts.com/2011/06/crime-control/the-startling-decline-in-rape/ "The rate of forcible rape as reported on victimization surveys peaked in 1979 at about 2.8 per 1000 population (age 12 or older). In 2009 the rate fell to 0.5." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.3.22.18 ( talk) 17:49, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: moved per request as uncontested for a week. Favonian ( talk) 16:48, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
Social effects of pornography → Effects of pornography – The article started out and is still primarily about effects of pornography on crime rates and such. There is already information on effects to individual users in the article, and there would be no reason for a separate article on them. Editor2286 ( talk) 18:08, 26 July 2013 (UTC)
I alerted WP:MED to this article because it continues to be a POV mess on both sides (those sides being the ones who state that pornography has negative effects on people/is generally bad vs. those who state that pornography has positive effects on people/is generally good or is okay for the most part). The neutral stance is not so much of a problem. It does not appear that WP:MED is going to be any help on this matter, however. And, Drbogdan, I disagree with this edit, because, like I stated at WP:MED, that is supported lower in the article...including by the Among criminals and juveniles section. We don't need to be reporting one side of what studies state on that matter, as though there is some general consensus on it among researchers. There isn't. The fact is that, like that bit you removed stated, studies on the effects of pornography concerning crime and domestic violence have been inconclusive. But I'm not too concerned with this article (I don't need the added stress); I simply would like it to be accurate and WP:Neutral (keeping the WP:Due weight part of WP:Neutral in mind as well). Flyer22 ( talk) 02:40, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
It has been recognized that repeated use of any substance whether it be chemical or viewing material(i.e repeated TV viewing) to escape negative feelings can be mentally addictive. Please consider my reference to TV addiction. I am active on this topic being a member of the NoFap community on Reddit and feel passionately about the negative affects of porn on males< ref> /info/en/?search=Television_addiction</ref> RichardUK2014 ( talk) 15:05, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
Thus, groups of repetitive behaviors, which some term behavioral addictions, with such subcategories as "sex addiction," "exercise addiction," or "shopping addiction," are not included because 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.
Thanks for commenting on this guys, I believe it comes down to personality types, some people say food is not addictive but if people have depression or low self esteem and they know they have a source of pleasure they will reach for it out of habit even when they know it is not beneficial to do so. I will try and find a reliable source but I see some have been mention here already RichardUK2014 ( talk) 14:23, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
Not a forum or a soapbox - WP:SPA edits. |
---|
Factual claims backed by peer-reviewed research have been deleted The page was entirely reverted to the previous, outdated version. The editor's (Drbogdan) sole explanation was "it was better before." How can that be, when two new brain studies supporting what I said have come out in the last two months? Here's what I posted. It's factual, and you need to explain your actions, Drbogdan. +++ Pornography addiction is a debated[16] behavioral addiction characterized by compulsive, repeated use of pornographic material until it causes serious negative consequences to one's physical, mental, social, and/or financial well-being.[17][18] When researchers at Cambridge University compared brain scans of 19 compulsive porn users with brain scans of healthy controls, they found that compulsive porn users showed the same brain changes within the same brain structures as seen in pathological consumption of drugs. Also, "Sexual desire or subjective measures of wanting appeared dissociated from liking, in line with incentive-salience theories of addiction in which there exists enhanced wanting but not liking of salient rewards."[19] Interestingly, a recent study by German researchers at the Max Planck Institute found addiction-like brain changes in non-addicted porn users, which correlated with how much porn they consume and how many years they had been consuming porn. Specifically, the more porn the subjects used, the less gray matter in the striatum. Also, the connection between the striatum and prefrontal cortex worsened with increased porn watching. Moreover, the heaviest porn users had less response to sexual images, thus less "sexual desire."[20] There is no diagnosis of pornography addiction in the current Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (the DSM-5).[21] The DSM-5 never specifically considered internet pornography addiction as a diagnosis. However it rejected "hypersexuality" as a diagnosis because "there is insufficient peer-reviewed evidence to establish the diagnostic criteria and course descriptions needed to identify these behaviors as mental disorders."[16] Notwithstanding the current position of the DSM, the American Society of Addiction Medicine (thousands of addiction MDs and addiction researchers) has publicly stated that sexual behavior addictions are real, and fundamentally the same condition as substance abuse addictions.[22][23] A 2014 review, whose lead author David Ley wrote "The Myth of Sexual Addiction," concluded that high-frequency use of visual sexual stimuli "fails to meet standards of addiction", e.g. asserting that it can reduce unhealthy behaviors.[24] Scientists state that excessive pornography viewing can be unhealthy if it becomes problematic for an individual, including excessive time spent viewing pornography instead of interacting with others. Individuals may report depression, social isolation, career loss, decreased productivity, or financial consequences as a result of their excessive Internet pornography viewing impeding their social life.[25]+++ It appears that there is some "gate keeping" going on with respect to this page. If you're trying to keep out peer-reviewed studies by top addiction neuroscientists something is up. Please justify your actions. Chrislyte ( talk) 03:30, 30 July 2014 (UTC)Chrislyte — Chrislyte ( talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
FWIW - Thank you *very much* for the comments - @ Chrislyte - no, gatekeeping is not intended - reliably sourced material representing a consensus viewpoint, in some fair and balanced way, seems better if possible - @ Tgeorgescu - yes, I *entirely* agree with your comments re WP:MEDRS - better to present medical consensus in secondary sources, rather than primary ones - hope this helps in some way - Thanks again for the comments - and - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan ( talk) 12:23, 30 July 2014 (UTC) Chrislyte Secondary sources are certainly appropriate when there is a consensus. There is no consensus on the effects of pornography or pornography addiction. In fact, the two studies cited are the first ever fMRI studies published on porn users. The only secondary source cited opposing the concept of pornography addiction had as its lead author David Ley, the "Author of The Myth of Sex Addiction". It was published in an obscure journal, which had been on hiatus for four years. This contrasts to the two brain studies I cited by Cambridge University and the Max Plank institute. What's more the sentence associated with this review makes no sense.
This empty suggestion is that porn viewing cannot be addictive because the authors claim it reduces rape in certain individuals. Aside the questionable correlation between a decline in reported sexual offenses as porn availability has increased, this says nothing about whether porn is addictive. This sentence becomes laughable when juxtaposed by the Ley, et al. claim that porn use has remained steady for over 30 years. From page 2 - "VSS use does not appear to be increasing despite increased availability." Citing the Ley et al review as a secondary source is especially problematic as the authors misrepresented their original sources, and many citations had nothing to do with text. They also omitted/ignored nearly all studies that counter their claims. I request that when citing this review that both of you also cite Ley's original sources so that we can judge for ourselves whether the studies back up their claims. If you would like a genuine review of relevant studies consider this one by a German team, which completely contradicts the "review" put out by Ley, Prause and Finn. "Prefrontal control and Internet addiction: a theoretical model and review of neuropsychological and neuroimaging findings" ( http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24904393) From the review: "Most of the current articles on neuropsychological and neuroimaging correlates of Internet addiction conclude that this clinically relevant disorder should be classified as a behavioral addiction. We agree with this conclusion." The review covers all internet addiction studies, both porn-related and otherwise, and concludes that internet addiction is a behavioral addiction with subtypes that need to be differentiated, such as pornography, gaming and social media. The review explains further: "The results [of the review] converge to the view that an addictive use of the Internet is linked to functional brain changes involving parts of the prefrontal cortex, accompanied by changes in other cortical (e.g., temporal) and subcortical (e.g., ventral striatum) regions. Additionally, there are some hints for structural brain changes, which also involve parts of the prefrontal cortex. The functional changes in prefrontal and striatal areas are primarily observable when individuals with Internet addiction perform certain tasks, in particular those measuring executive functions and cue-reactivity. These results, together with those emerging from neuropsychological studies, suggest that prefrontal control processes are reduced in individuals who are addicted to the Internet and may be related to the patients’ loss of control over their Internet use. " The reviewers' conclusions are entirely in alignment with the two peer-reviewed studies on porn users' brains I cited. So it's evident where the true consensus is among addiction neuroscientists. Again, I don't see how you can justify removing carefully performed studies from two of the world's finest research institutes while featuring an irresponsible, one-sided "review" by authors with a demonstrable bias. This has to be gatekeeping at its most egregious. How do we appeal this action?— Preceding unsigned comment added by Chrislyte ( talk • contribs) 23:22, 30 July 2014 (UTC) — Chrislyte ( talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
So you still intend to gate keep and ignore the substance of my remarks, all of which are perfectly relevant to the title? Clearly these two new studies could not be more relevant to a Wiki page on "Effects of Pornography." Chrislyte ( talk • contribs — Chrislyte ( talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. — Preceding undated comment added 00:37, 31 July 2014 (UTC) Claims that liberalization of pornography in society may be associated with decreased rape need to acknowledge more recent conflicting evidence See, for example, "How to Lie with Rape Statistics: America's Hidden Rape Crisis" (2014) http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2404424 From this review: "Further, the corrected data reveal that the study period [the last 20 years] includes fifteen to eighteen of the highest rates of rape since tracking of the data began in 1930. Instead of experiencing the widely reported "great decline" in rape, America is in the midst of a hidden rape crisis. Further, the techniques that conceal rape complaints deprioritize those cases so that police conduct little or no investigation." Chrislyte — Chrislyte ( talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Effects on sexual function. Drbogdan cites popular article about masturbation (not porn), yet rejects study about porn users. Ley et al. review no longer valid. User Drbogdan has now added a NY times article as a reference for Effects on sexual function. This article had many opinions, so it is internally inconsistent. The quotes cited by User Drbogdan were about masturbation's effects on sexual performance, not Internet porn's effects. It has no place here. I can link to articles and books by urologists and sex therapists that say that porn induced ED exists. Is this the game you want to play? For example, Cornell Urology Professor, and Author of The New Naked, said in this article ( and in his book)
In addition to citing quotes about masturbation, not porn, User Drbogdan is attempting to keep peer-reviewed study by Cambridge neuroscientists from appearing. Recent Peer-reviewed research by Cambridge University team headed by Addiction neuroscientist Valerie Voon found erectile dysfunction in compulsive porn users that was caused by porn use. Quotes from the research:
Please note the wording in the first quote: "as a result of excessive use of sexually explicit materials". Not only do 60% of compulsive porn users have ED, they sate the ED is the result of porn use. This attempt to disregard peer-reviewed studies, yet cite random quotes about masturbation (not porn) within lay articles containing conflicting opinions, is disturbing. Does Wikipedia endorse such behaviors? Chrislyte ( talk) 15:40, 31 July 2014 (UTC)Chrislyte — Chrislyte ( talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
Sorry, but the NYT article was still there, as FN 10. Moreover, you didn't address the segment of the article quoted in the footnotes was about masturbation not "the effects of pornography".
Users Drbogdan & Tgeorgescu:
Dr. Krueger's statement was at least directly on point in terms of the misleading statements implying that the DSM had formally considered and "specifically rejected" internet pornography addiction. It never had, and Krueger's remarks as a DSM insider, were clarification of that. There's no consensus on the statement that there's no evidence of a link between ED and porn, so I'll revert. Enjoy! Chrislyte ( talk) 18:41, 1 August 2014 (UTC)Chrislyte — Chrislyte ( talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
Your statement is once again an attempt to conflate the effects of masturbation with porn use. The argument is that pornography use cause erectile dysfunction. The article says that masturbation does not cause ED. No one is arguing that masturbation causes ED. The quotes cited are about masturbation n NOT porn. This is clearly gate keeping by a few users. Chrislyte ( talk) 19:39, 2 August 2014 (UTC)Chrislyte I'm conforming the "pornography addiction" section to the Wiki page on "pornography addiction" as it seems wise to keep them consistent. Chrislyte ( talk) 18:31, 1 August 2014 (UTC)Chrislyte — Chrislyte ( talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. User Drbogdan is deleting peer-reviewed studies & hiding this by using ":Not a forum or a soapbox" User Drbogdan is inappropriately labeling the attempts to cite peer-reviewed studies as Not a forum or a soapbox - WP:SPA edits I have attempted to cite several peer reviewed studies. A 2014 was on rape stats. It was rejected without any valid reason. "How to Lie with Rape Statistics: America's Hidden Rape Crisis" (2014) http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2404424 From this review: "Further, the corrected data reveal that the study period [the last 20 years] includes fifteen to eighteen of the highest rates of rape since tracking of the data began in 1930. Two 2014 fMIR studies on porn users, by Cambridge university and the Max Planck Institute: 1) CAMBRIDGE - Neural Correlates of Sexual Cue Reactivity in Individuals with and without Compulsive Sexual Behaviours 2) MAX PLANCK INSTITUTE - Brain Structure and Functional Connectivity Associated With Pornography Consumption: The Brain on Porn In section "Effects on sexual function" User Drbogdan replaced the Cambridge study, and quotes by Urologists, with a NY Times article that contained quotes about masturbation not causing ED. These quotes have have nothing to do with the sexual effects of porn. This article has no place here. In addition to citing quotes only about masturbation (not porn), User Drbogdan is attempting to keep a peer-reviewed study by Cambridge university from appearing. The Cambridge University team was headed by Addiction neuroscientist Valerie Voon. Her stdudy found erectile dysfunction in compulsive porn users that was caused by porn use. Quotes from the research:
Please note the wording in the first quote: "as a result of excessive use of sexually explicit materials". Not only do 60% of compulsive porn users have ED, they sate the ED is the result of porn use. This practice by User Drbogdan to delte peer-reviewed studies, and replace them with irrelevant quotes quotes about masturbation (not porn) within lay articles quoting containing conflicting opinions, is a blatant attempt at censorship. The same goes for deleting the latest review of the literature studies on rape statistics is censorship. Hiding the debate on the talk page is a clear attempt at censorship. I have contacted Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chrislyte ( talk • contribs) — Chrislyte ( talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. 20:08, 2 August 2014 (UTC) User Drbogdan is deleting peer-reviewed studies & hiding this by using ":Not a forum or a soapbox" User Drbogdan is inappropriately labeling the attempts to cite peer-reviewed studies as Not a forum or a soapbox - WP:SPA edits I have attempted to cite several peer reviewed studies. A 2014 was on rape stats. It was rejected without any valid reason. "How to Lie with Rape Statistics: America's Hidden Rape Crisis" (2014) http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2404424 From this review: "Further, the corrected data reveal that the study period [the last 20 years] includes fifteen to eighteen of the highest rates of rape since tracking of the data began in 1930. The following 2014 fMIR studies on porn users, by Cambridge university and the Max Planck Institute, are also being deleted by user Drbogdan : 1) CAMBRIDGE - Neural Correlates of Sexual Cue Reactivity in Individuals with and without Compulsive Sexual Behaviours 2) MAX PLANCK INSTITUTE - Brain Structure and Functional Connectivity Associated With Pornography Consumption: The Brain on Porn In section "Effects on sexual function" User Drbogdan replaced the above Cambridge study, and quotes by Urologists, with a NY Times article that contained quotes about masturbation not causing ED. Obviously, these quotes have have nothing to do with the sexual effects of porn. This article has no place here. In addition to citing quotes about masturbation (not porn), User Drbogdan is attempting to keep a peer-reviewed study by Cambridge university from appearing anywhere in this Wiki article. The Cambridge University team of 11 neuroscientists was headed by Addiction specialist Valerie Voon. Her study found erectile dysfunction in compulsive porn users that was caused by porn use. Quotes from the research:
Please note the wording in the first quote: "as a result of excessive use of sexually explicit materials". Not only do 60% of compulsive porn users have ED, they sate the ED is the result of porn use. This practice by User Drbogdan deleting peer-reviewed studies, and replacing them with irrelevant quotes about masturbation (not porn) found in lay articles containing conflicting opinions, is a blatant attempt at censorship. The same goes for deleting the latest review of the literature on rape statistics. This attempt to hide the debate, and to delete peer-reviewed stduies is a clear attempt at censorship. I have reported this to Wikipedia. Chrislyte ( talk) 20:49, 2 August 2014 (UTC)Chrislyte — Chrislyte ( talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. |
{{
help}}
Seems
User:Chrislyte (
WP:SPA) has been unable to develop a
WP:CONSENSUS among editors for his/her edits of disputed material - and continues to add disputed material to the
main article without any agreement among other editors - such edits have been
reverted several times (
rv1,
rv2) in
order that the disputed material be discussed among editors - and some agreement reached before the material is added to the
main article - but to no avail - there has been no
WP:CONSENSUS for the material being added - seems to be a bit of
WP:OWN or related on the part of
User:Chrislyte for some reason - if possible, please help sort this all out - Thanking you in advance for your help with this - and - Enjoy! :)
Drbogdan (
talk) 21:02, 2 August 2014 (UTC)
If you cannot agree - and we don't expect that all editors will always agree, then the next step is Wikipedia:Dispute resolution Ronhjones (Talk) 22:12, 2 August 2014 (UTC)
{{
POV}}
templates have been added to relevant sections (including
Effects on sexual function and
Addiction) in the
main article to alert readers to the issue - hope this is *entirely* ok - please let me know if otherwise of course - Thanks again for your comments - and - Enjoy! :)
Drbogdan (
talk) 22:37, 2 August 2014 (UTC)Emily Witt's quote, footnote to the 'Effects on sexual function' section, is about the effects of masturbation and ejaculation, not visual stimuli, and is thus, in my opinion, unrelated. My first thought was to delete the footnote altogether, but after some thought I'm inclined to believe that a more thorough wording would be a better approach. Not sure how to address this, perhaps someone will feel like doing it. Corntrooper ( talk) 02:32, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
It would be better if the article would be more detailed on the nature of the pornography related to a given association, rather than the sweeping generalization, "pornography". Depending on whom you ask, "pornography" can be even pin-ups, such as the swimsuit edition of Sports Illustrated. There must be a whole gradation between that and chained tripe anal penetration with horses, and I can't believe it all leads to the same effects. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.18.17.180 ( talk) 01:59, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
According to WP:MEDRS, primary medical sources are rather unreliable for establishing objective facts which are to be stated in the voice of Wikipedia. I restored the maintenance templates indicating WP:MEDRS violations. Tgeorgescu ( talk) 01:38, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
I removed an external link to an undergraduate essay. It is full of value judgments, biased use of sources, etc. It is unrepresentative. You know, there are medicine teachers who oppose porn (such as Donald L. Hilton, Jr., MD), they could be cited instead of that undergraduate essay. I mean, these teachers are scientifically seen a tiny minority, but they are still notable for this debate. Tgeorgescu ( talk) 13:01, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
You know, I have online several of my undergraduate essays. How about inserting external links to these in 10-20 Wikipedia articles? How about every Wikipedian doing that? Tgeorgescu ( talk) 13:43, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
As seen here and here, I reverted Roshu Bangal ( talk · contribs) twice on adding Template: POV to the article, stating, "Per Template:POV, drive-by tagging is not allowed. Either make a case on the talk page or this tag will stay removed." and "Once again, you need to specifically point out problems you feel the article has on the article talk page. We are not mindreaders." Despite that, Roshu Bangal added the tag a third time.
Roshu Bangal, judging by your very first edit to Wikipedia, and your edits to Wikipedia since then, you are not a WP:Newbie. So you should be familiar with the WP:Edit warring policy. No matter how much you want the Template: POV tag to stay on the article, it will not be staying on the article unless you make a strong case for it here on this talk page. Flyer22 ( talk) 13:38, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
Note: Roshu Bangal ( talk · contribs) replied on my talk page about this. He should have obviously responded here on this talk page instead. And with this edit, The Anome reverted Roshu Bangal. Flyer22 ( talk) 03:00, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
About this
, yes and no (Update: clarification, this exact text needs not be in the lead, only in some form). Yes, thanks, it should not only be in the lead.
Pre WP:LEAD: "The lead should be able to stand alone as a concise overview. [..] The lead is the first part of the article most people read, and many only read the lead." and somewhere (I forget where), the guidelines say you should start with the article title, in bold (some leeway). The article's title isn't "Research concerning the effects of pornography".
Per WP:TITLE, I propose changing the title. Maybe "Disputed research into long term effects of effects of pornography". Or "Controversial research.." or something. If "long term" is missing, then the most immediate effect should stay in, and the only proven highly reliable result. Feel free to come up with a counter-proposal. comp.arch ( talk) 17:34, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
Notification to newbies: according to WP:MEDRS primary sources are rejected by default. Do not claim medical facts based upon primary research. Tgeorgescu ( talk) 19:25, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
with low publishing fees paid by authors or their institutions.
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
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.
A simple fact - Open access journals, which accept pay, are in fact accepted as sources on Wikipedia, including MDPI. Until you can demonstrate that MDPI studies have been blocked from Wikipedia, you are gaming the system (gate-keeping).
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."
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) 16:17, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
Here is a summary of the problem. I have no opinion on whether it passes WP:MEDRS, but it is certainly the learned opinion of an expert in addictions. Tgeorgescu ( talk) 21:02, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
"So when does it become an addiction?" That, of course, is a key question for researchers trying to understand pornography's dark side.
— Kirsten Weir, op. cit.
About this revert "Not WP:MEDRS-compliant; Got enough faulty sources in this article". Just not sure if either or both sources where considered "faulty".
The primary source: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1617155/ Image content influences men's semen quality
seems to be genuine research, and on one of the most reliable (immediate) effects of pornography. And explaining difference in effects. I find it very intriguing this sperm competition, that is known in non-human species, not really unbelievable that it also happens in humans. I must assume that the issue is with the other source that I quoted (that links to the primary source). I note that MEDRDS, says: "Primary sources should generally not be used for biomedical content". The point of MEDRS and WP:V (the general rule) is I think not to keep truth out. There was some other research also I was at the same time on nih.gov on this that I did not look into. comp.arch ( talk) 09:35, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
I have to admit that being published by the Witherspoon Institute is not exactly WP:SPS, but it isn't WP:MEDRS or WP:MEDASSESS either. W.I. is a conservative think tank and conservatives have an ax to grind against pornography, which makes it a polemical source. Anyway, there is no indication of independent peer-review of the article, so it basically fails the criteria outlined at WP:SOURCES and WP:IRS. According to WP:TWITTER the source may be used with attribution in order to describe the beliefs of W.I., but not for establishing objective facts for our encyclopedia. Tgeorgescu ( talk) 01:34, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
On that website I noticed that W.I. wants to overturn the First Amendment. Well, that's not traditional US conservatism, that's rather something like Tea Party conservatism. Tgeorgescu ( talk) 01:45, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
Or perhaps that's too radical for the Tea Party, too. Tgeorgescu ( talk) 01:50, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
Although at times effective for a little while, she continually found a re-stocked stash of pornographic materials, despite his promises to stop. Her distress and his inability to hear her distress reached such high levels that she had attempted suicide: thus her admission into the hospital and our meeting.
— Ana J. Bridges, Pornography's Effects on Interpersonal Relationships
Let's examine the facts: the wife did not satisfy her husband's sexual drive and she decided he wasn't even allowed to masturbate using pornography. When she found that he still used pornography, she attempted suicide. Any rank-and-file psychiatrist would consider that both her decision not to allow her husband to masturbate as well as her attempted suicide are proofs of severe mental derangement. She loathed pornography because she was severely mentally deranged. So the treatment would need to dismantle her obsession with pornography (obsession against pornography is obsession with pornography, albeit from a sexual purity compulsion). Bridges blames pornography for that attempted suicide, but she could as easily blame religiously fundamentalist brainwashing which produced the subject's severe loath for pornography. Why is pornography use the root of the problem, instead of religious brainwashing? This is begging the question that pornography is harmful, which to her makes sense because she starts from the unwritten assumption that religion cannot be harmful. Therefore the conclusions of her study are highly questionable. Tgeorgescu ( talk) 22:49, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
So, there are two ways of interpreting the data: blaming the porn or blaming the church. A more sophisticated way is blaming the tension between porn and church. Tgeorgescu ( talk) 13:08, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
Beall has removed the company from his predators list, but other reasons mentioned at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 197#Vanity press or MEDRS-compliant source.3F still hold. The conclusion is that it isn't vanity press, but neither is it WP:MEDRS compliant. Tgeorgescu ( talk) 22:25, 21 December 2015 (UTC)
I just reviewed this article and there is a lot of content about health sourced to non-MEDRS compliant sources. I was going to start trimming but I wanted to make sure that everybody is on the same page about the need for MEDRS sources to support content about health. Does anybody here disagree with that? Jytdog ( talk) 02:04, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
Tgeorgescu, regarding this, this and this, what are you arguing? I didn't look at the latest sources carefully, but, as you know, WP:MEDRS does accept review articles; WP:MEDRS prefers them. Flyer22 Reborn ( talk) 02:27, 29 July 2016 (UTC)
I reverted the title change by Jc37, who should have started a WP:Requested move discussion if he wanted this title changed. I reverted because I see no need for the article to have the longer "Research on the effects of pornography" title. What else would "effects of pornography" be based on if not research? It's not like it would make sense to have both an "Effects of pornography" article and a "Research on the effects of pornography" article. Furthermore, the sources state "Effects of pornography" or similar, not "Research on the effects of pornography." Flyer22 Reborn ( talk) 06:19, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
Jc37, I apologize if I came across as rude in my initial above post. I have tweaked the lead so that it better reflects the article title. I see that you also moved the categories to Category:Research on the effects of pornography and Category:Research on the effects of pornography; I think those should be moved back as well, but I can't move them back. Administrative powers are needed for that. Flyer22 Reborn ( talk) 06:55, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
I removed the 2012 review because it didn't seem to have much significance if the rest of the section was removed. I deliberately wrote "marked as unreliable" instead of "unreliable" to avoid suggesting that it was definitely a bad source. Regarding the 2014 ley review, I removed it because it's from a non-medline indexed journal which is in ill repute. Note that I also removed the 2015 review with opposite conclusions because it also was not medline indexed. I'm going to remove the 2014 ley review again for now, I would suggest you read and research it before reinstating it. XBiophagex ( talk) 03:47, 10 September 2016 (UTC)
I removed the rest of the paragraph because it doesn't regard the topic of the section: "Sexual function and addiction." It could be included elsewhere. XBiophagex ( talk) 04:04, 10 September 2016 (UTC)
People who are interested in researching this kinda stuff (not the nudge nudge wink wink type of researching) are obviously gonna focus on extreme behaviour and negative stuff. Boring research does not get funded or published. Outdated references should be removed, because times have changed and so has our perception of stuff like this. ((( The Quixotic Potato))) ( talk) 00:38, 4 February 2017 (UTC)
Here you can see some of the crap I removed:
There is a lot more crap that needs to be removed or rewritten. ((( The Quixotic Potato))) ( talk) 00:54, 4 February 2017 (UTC)
I also deleted the opinion of two Halifax psychotherapists, AFAIK that is not even a protected title in their province (so anyone can call him/herself a psychotherapist), and even if it would be then this would still be undue and not an RS. ((( The Quixotic Potato))) ( talk) 01:13, 4 February 2017 (UTC)
Doc James changed the lead. ((( The Quixotic Potato))) ( talk) 12:10, 4 February 2017 (UTC) Irrelevant rant: Personally I dislike the convention that stuff in the lead can be unreferenced because the references appear later in the article. This is personal preference, nothing more than my opinion which can safely be ignored, but I prefer having a footnote that directs the reader to the correct section and/or to the sources. ((( The Quixotic Potato))) ( talk) 12:10, 4 February 2017 (UTC)
I have removed the tags for now, the article has improved significantly. It isn't perfect, but it is in a lot better shape then it used to be. ((( The Quixotic Potato))) ( talk) 09:04, 11 February 2017 (UTC)
I found a sentence that says:
"Two 2016 neurology reviews found evidence of addiction related brain changes in internet pornography users."
I clicked on the references and they are talking about people with Compulsive Sexual Behavior and hypersexuals, not about the average internet pornography user.
If I change the sentence to something like:
"Two 2016 neurology reviews found evidence of addiction related brain changes in hypersexuals."
or
"Two 2016 neurology reviews found evidence of addiction related brain changes in people with Compulsive Sexual Behavior."
then it seems to be more relevant to an article about hypersexuality/CSB. Of course we do not know if CSB/hypersexuality are caused by pornography, and the title of this article is "Effects of pornography".
I propose moving the following sentences to Hypersexuality:
"Two 2016 neurology reviews found evidence of addiction related brain changes in internet pornography users. Psychological effects of these brain changes are described as desensitization to reward, a dysfunctional anxiety response, and impulsiveness.[3][4]"
I am not sure yet what to do about the sentence that immediately follows:
Another 2016 review suggests that internet behaviors, including the use of pornography, be considered potentially addictive, and that problematic use of online pornography be considered an "internet-use disorder".[5]
((( The Quixotic Potato))) ( talk) 12:42, 4 February 2017 (UTC)
Like I just stated on SlimVirgin's talk page, when explaining why I had not significantly improved this article and when asking if she wouldn't mind helping with it: After leaving this article two days ago, I immediately realized that we were focusing too much on what is WP:MEDRS-compliant, but that a lot regarding this topic has to do with social issues, which means that WP:MEDRS sources are not always required. I've also been clear above that there has not been much progress in the literature on the effects of pornography, the old references are still the current knowledge on this topic, and scholarly book sources cover a lot of what is in this article and all we need to do to improve the sourcing is replace the primary sources with tertiary and/or secondary sources. But in some cases, keeping primary sources is appropriate since there has not been much progress in this field.
The Quixotic Potato removed this and this, but the first is addressed in the Pornography addiction article, and other sources, and the latter is addressed in sources talking about the social aspects of pornography (for example, how women feel about their boyfriends and husbands viewing pornography).
We need to ask ourselves whether this article is mostly a medical, psychological or social article. Or if it's equally (or almost equally) all three. Do we use a WP:MEDMOS#Sections setup for it? Can a WP:MEDMOS setup work for it? Or do we set the article up in some other way? Flyer22 Reborn ( talk) 19:12, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
SlimVirgin declined to help fix up/expand this article. So I will be taking on the matter myself, keeping what I stated before and in this section in mind. And, yes, this means that most of the content is unlikely to be positive, but I will look for positive content on the topic. Flyer22 Reborn ( talk) 03:29, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
In social and behavioral sciences, medicine, etc., it is not the statistics which proves causality: causality is postulated by a theory and the data support or do not support its claim.
My photo could be used as evidence, for example, to determine if 1) the water was higher than last week or 2) the winter ice was gone 3) the boat race was on some other lake or 4) if aliens were waterskiing that day. But, until you advance some relevant theoretical claim a photo is just a photo—it is not “evidence.”
— Karl W. Giberson, My Debate With an ‘Intelligent Design’ Theorist
The gist is: in a theoretical vacuum the data are meaningless. So, I am highly skeptical of studies which claim to prove causality, since asserting causality belongs to the realm of theories, not to the realm of empirical findings. To put it briefly: theories assert causality and empirical studies are used to test theories. See #Association: Correlation does not imply causation. Tgeorgescu ( talk) 15:53, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
I have linked to Correlation does not imply causation, because many articles claim association, not causality. Tgeorgescu ( talk) 16:38, 10 January 2016 (UTC)
I would suggest that the 'Beliefs' section be entirely removed. It's overly wordy and deals with 30 year old material. The 2013 study is not a secondary source and the 2012 review is marked as unreliable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by XBiophagex ( talk • contribs) 04:45, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
Went ahead and did it, and removed some other content. XBiophagex ( talk) 22:39, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on Effects of pornography. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 06:35, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
@ Jane Burgundy: Where did you got that piece of information? Please clearly WP:CITE your WP:SOURCES for WP:VERification. But here is a quote for you:
Note that the word addiction is not applied as a diagnostic term in this classification, although it is in common usage in many countries to describe severe problems related to compulsive and habitual use of substances.
— DSM-5, p. 485
Quoted by Tgeorgescu ( talk) 12:10, 3 February 2019 (UTC)
@ Jane Burgundy: [7] violated both WP:NPOV and WP:LEDE. Not to mention WP:OR. Tgeorgescu ( talk) 00:27, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
@ Jane Burgundy: We don't have a pro-porn bias. Neither have we an anti-porn bias. We have a bias for mainstream science and for the medical orthodoxy, see WP:MEDRS, which you are expected to obey if you do not want to land in hot water. As stated at WP:LEDE, the lead section summarizes the article, so every claim has to be sourced, not necessarily in the lead section, but certainly somewhere in our article. Tgeorgescu ( talk) 01:29, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
@ Jane Burgundy: Don't despise talk pages, that's tendentious editing. You need to WP:COMMUNICATE. And... are you kidding me? Wright, Paul J.; Tokunaga, Robert S.; Kraus, Ashley (2015-12-29). "A Meta-Analysis of Pornography Consumption and Actual Acts of Sexual Aggression in General Population Studies". Journal of Communication. 66 (1). Oxford University Press (OUP): 183–205. doi: 10.1111/jcom.12201. ISSN 0021-9916. is not even indexed by PubMed, let alone MEDLINE, which is demanded per WP:MEDRS. I told you that you might get in hot water if you disobey it. And, yes, I am a neutral editor: some POV-pushers accuse me of being pro-porn, others accuse me of being anti-porn, and I cannot be both at the same time. AFAIK Wright, Tokunaga and Kraus are neither MDs nor psychologists (at least have no diploma in such professions, I could not find the fields of their Master's degrees—I could not find the field of Tokunaga's PhD, but at [8] he does not claim to be skilled/experienced in psychology). On PubMed: "J Commun Current ISSN: 0021-9916 (Print) Indexing Status: Not currently indexed for MEDLINE." So, why is their paper not indexed by PubMed? Has it been retracted? According to [9] the paper has been cited by only two other articles, including one article by the same authors (they have cited themselves), so it severely fails WP:USEBYOTHERS. Summary:
Therefore: this paper can safely be rejected for not matching the germane WP:PAGs. If you ask me, the Journal of Communication is a wholly inappropriate venue for revolutionizing the medical consensus in psychiatry and sexology. It's like discussing microprocessor architecture in a journal of infectious diseases. Neil Malamuth has compared porn to alcohol: it increases violence in a few people, not in most people; it makes most people more relaxed. According to crime statistics it is highly unlikely that porn increases overall sexual violence. Tgeorgescu ( talk) 19:01, 6 February 2019 (UTC)
@
Jane Burgundy: Make an educated guess about this graph:
.
Tgeorgescu (
talk) 04:05, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
@ Jane Burgundy: Let me help you: modus tollens. Precisely that same stuff that meant the decease of the myth "masturbation makes you blind". Tgeorgescu ( talk) 21:14, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
The above is a graph of the total number, i.e. not per 1000 inhabitants. Tgeorgescu ( talk) 22:04, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
No source, purely opinion, not necessary for balanced viewpoint. 71.188.51.163 ( talk) 13:31, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
Excuse me, do you consider BBC article, which hasn't any further associated source, as sufficient to hold the opinion in chapter 1?
<chapter 1> "In one meta-study by researchers at Middlesex University in England, over 40,000 papers and articles were submitted to the team for review and 276 or 0.69% were suitable for consideration due to the low quality of research within the field.[13]"
<BBC citation> "Earlier this year the UK children's commissioner asked academics from Middlesex University to review all the available evidence about the effect on adolescents. They excluded articles that had a very "particular ideological angle" or gave them a very low ranking - particularly if they also had methodological problems. They used a weight of evidence approach to rank the quality and relevance of the papers - and gave them a strength rating of high, medium or low.
More than 40,000 papers were submitted, but only 276 met their criteria." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:120B:C3DF:B130:A8A3:37EE:C709:5DC0 ( talk) 20:40, 6 June 2019 (UTC)
I am not the one who can judge if Neil Malamuth is pro-porn or anti-porn and this is not my point. It is not stated that he was involved in that particular meta-study, could you clarify why do you mention Malamuth? I am being worried only about that famous 40,000 papers meta-study. In my opinion, a regular press article - even if it is as respectable as BBC - is not suitable to be reliable if it has no further sources. It is also hard to track that study online, I could not find any report. 2A02:120B:C3DF:B130:462:53E6:5455:EE30 ( talk) 09:01, 7 June 2019 (UTC)
It is not consistent with what you have stated before in the talk regarding "effects of pornography". According to WP:MEDRS, the popular press is generally not a reliable source of information. Moreover, we can rate the Neil Malamuth opinion and - what is more important - quote him, based only on the quality of papers he has produced. Regarding a statement not being "a medical claim" - I cannot see a reason why we can use a statement (or rather - an opinion) just because it is NOT a medical claim. Because we apply so strict procedures to other types of source we can use on Wikipedia, it looks like a simple trick - a bypass - to release some information unconfirmed by the strict medical system. Hence, I doubt why <only> the opinion of - however respectable researcher - is used to hold the very important statement in the context of the chapter and of the whole document.20:41, 7 June 2019 (UTC) 2A02:120B:C3DF:B130:462:53E6:5455:EE30 ( talk)
This page currently has serious research, citation, and presentation problems. I'll just take it from the top and go from there.
The most important issue here is that this article should be rewritten in a way that differentiates between types of pornography, rather than lumping anything that could be classified as porn into one big "pornography" category. Internet pornography videos, pornographic books, porn pictures/magazines, etc are all widely different, with different effects, and should not be thrown into one basket as if they are identical. There is significant research to believe that internet porn videos in particular have far more potent effect on viewers than other types of what could be classified as pornography.
Moving on - Source 6 is a dead link. Source 7 is from 1973; over 45 years old and from before the internet existed. If it's kept, it should be in a section separate from internet pornography, and not left as a blanket for statements regarding all pornography. Source 8 has similar age problems to source 7, citing research as far back as 1965 and on average in the mid-1980s. This should also therefor also not be used to make blanket statements about all modern pornography. Source 9 cites an entire book - no page or paragraph is listed. Source 10 is also a dead link, but seems to want to link to research from the 1970s - again, well before the internet. Source 11 is a valid source, but it's one man's research, and is not enough alone to make a declaratory statement of the effects of all pornography. Source 12 has 2 main problems: 1) it's a single person's theory, not a scientific source. 2) It's dripping with political bias, attacking both the Nixon and Reagan administrations personally - this is not an objective source by any means.
For all of the above reasons, source 11 is the only source that should be kept in the article when referencing pornography as a whole. All the others (1-12) should either be tooled into a relevant section where they're applicable, or removed entirely. Sources 6, 9, 10, and 12 warrant total removal.
Next there's the "Zillman's Research" section. Firstly, this entire research is sourced from a dead link. Until a proper source can be given, this section should be removed entirely. Either way, sources 16-19 also have no links whatsoever. Source 19 is literally just a non-scientist feminist's opinion and should be removed, as well as the paragraph dedicated to it.
The Addiction section is alright for the most part, but should be slightly reworded to be more balanced in its presentation of information from both sides of the issue, especially since the research on what qualifies as "addiction" often varies.
The chart depicting the drop in rape rate is very misleading and should be removed as 1) Experts debate why sex crimes dropped between the 70s and 2000s, with most explanations not involving porn and 2) This drop in rape was not uniform across all countries where pornographic material went from mainly illegal to mainly legal. Edit5001 ( talk) 20:37, 12 October 2019 (UTC)
Someone should include that for npov. it seems to be include in this /info/en/?search=Pornography_addiction#Diagnostic_status Wikipedia article — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mehdi mohammed mahmoud ( talk • contribs) 00:44, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
A number of studies have found neurological markers of addiction in internet porn users,[19][20][21] which is consistent with a large body of research finding similar markers in other kinds of problematic internet users.[20] Yet other studies found missing, critical biomarkers of addiction,[22] and most addiction biomarkers have never been demonstrated for pornography.[23]
Hi. I edited this page (effects of pornography) last night to add content, increase currency and remove bias, including adding a significant number of quality references to scientific research, and you rolled back my changes. This was not appropriate. Please revert back to my last saved state so the page can continue to improve. UnicornRainbowMonkey ( talk) 21:56, 26 April 2016 (UTC)
There is increasing evidence that male exposure to porn changes brain chemistry leading to dopamine deficiency and other classic addictive responses that compound over time, and may be associated with depression and erectile disjunction in chronic users. There are also impacts on bonding with their partner, intimacy, and displaying committed behaviours as well as increased real-world infidelity. [1] [2] Studies have found that porn-free relationships are stronger, with less cheating.
There is evidence that porn use can cause relationship stress and may result in commitment problems and increased infidelity. [3] There is a rapidly increasing movement of "NoFap" men who are pledging to stop consuming porn and masturbating. Clinical observers say it's because porn addicts reach a physiological point related to brain chemistry where they can no longer "perform" with real women and pledge off porn to aid recovery (recovery time approx. 2 months in men 50+; 4-5 months in younger males).
References
"Obviously, if you were actually to fast from dopamine it would probably be fatal," [12]. "Dopamine serves many complex functions in the brain, and only kindergarten brain science describes it as an addictive drug." [13]. tgeorgescu ( talk) 06:29, 14 August 2021 (UTC)
According to WP:SCIRS, Cite reviews, don't write them. I am afraid this is being broken by the recent edits. tgeorgescu ( talk) 20:53, 12 October 2021 (UTC)
Basically, there are no empirical data about the impact of porn upon youth. Most studies thereupon are navel-gazing, instead of responsible statistical processing of empirical data.
E.g. this is a PhD research thereupon from the Netherlands: https://www.uva.nl/binaries/content/assets/uva/nl/onderzoek/promoveren/samenvattingen/2020/01/samenvatting-klaassen-marleen.pdf
Its conclusion: low statistical correlation
and causality cannot be shown.
See its precedent upon https://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2014/08/14/children-who-access-internet-porn-more-likely-to-have-sex-younger_n_7365794.html Miranda Horvath stated about this: "But it is not possible to establish causation from correlational studies, and to say whether pornography is changing or reinforcing attitudes." Source: https://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-22987051
Positive knowledge (as opposed to speculation or moralism) is extremely hard to come by, and to the extent that it exists, it does not support the bold claims of the moralists.
Or, as the biologist Steve Jones, Emeritus Professor of Genetics at University College London said about something else "a classic case of Arts Faculty science. Never mind the hypothesis, give me the data, and there aren’t any". tgeorgescu ( talk) 15:40, 16 October 2021 (UTC)
Claire97Reid, why did you create the
Effects of pornography on relationships spin-off article...when the Effects of pornography article is supposed to be about how "the effects of pornography on individuals or their sexual relationships depend on the type of pornography used and differ from person to person"? Yes, this article addresses violence and crime rates, but that is connected to relationships with others in addition to random interaction with others. So much of the material about the effects of pornography concerns the effects it has on others. relationships. Furthermore, the article you created also touches on the effects that pornography has on individuals. I fail to see why the article you created should not be merged with this one. Well, except for the fact that it needs significant cleanup.
Flyer22 Frozen (
talk) 07:02, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
Merger complete. --
Xurizuri (
talk) 07:02, 24 October 2021 (UTC)
Per Horvath, cited in our article, most studies about porn do not have the possibility of establishing causal relationships. So not necessarily a cause
is meant to dodge the fact that absolutely no cause is
known. I do not mean "guessed" or "suspected", but simply "known", as in
epistemology. If the cause cannot be honestly posited as validly inferred, it is not known. The mantra of all empirical scientists is
correlation does not imply causation.
tgeorgescu (
talk) 02:43, 28 November 2021 (UTC)
Wikipedia builds on sources, not opinions.I'm afraid that's not what the tobacco industry fought for:
correlation does not equal causationis what every MD learns in medical school. True 50 years ago and it is still true now. That mantra did not change a jot. If the scientific consensus is that causality has been shown, then Wikipedia renders it as fact. I'm in no position to second-guess the medical consensus.
For example, death by drowning strongly correlates with sales of ice cream sandwiches.tgeorgescu ( talk) 03:04, 28 November 2021 (UTC)
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 23 August 2021 and 8 December 2021. Further details are available
on the course page. Student editor(s):
Amyaris. Peer reviewers:
Ezacarias01,
Ageorgescu1698.
Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT ( talk) 20:16, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
I need some help to identify if I’m a person who consumes pornography excessively or not? 76.64.125.243 ( talk) 13:53, 11 February 2022 (UTC)