Talk:Effects of pornography/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
ArchiveĀ 1 ArchiveĀ 2

Additional material to be included

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)

It is statistically critical to ALWAYS draw attention to the implicit weakness in correlation studies. When A is correlated with (happens with) B, then did A cause B or did B cause A? See Bayes' theorem. And it could be NEITHER! C might cause both A and B. I hate these correlation studies. Suddenly everybody gets their undies in a bundle and says "THERE NOW! That PROVES it." In fact, it may prove just the opposite.

So, in the above cases. did higher rates of sexual assaults cause (or predated) higher readership or did higher readership cause higher sexual assaults? Many examples throughout statistics can be given (cellphones, lie detectors, feminism, biostatistics, ad infinitum) where people thought one and discovered later that it was the other. THIS HAPPENS IN EVERY POLITICALLY CONTENTIOUS TOPIC THROUGHOUT WIKIPEDIA. I really think there should be a STANDARDIZED flag of some sort that says correlation studies tell us NOTHING. Prof. Judea Pearl names some excellent examples. I once asked my grad advisor if I could include some of his examples in my thesis. He said, "You wouldn't want to publish THAT! People wouldn't want to hire you!" I decided to get drunk.

Conclusion? These statistical examples don't help at all. They just confuse the issue. But if the research says one CAUSED the other (given our presuppositions)....then you've got something.

Sigh....we as a world society REALLY need to learn this.

Please, OH please...to the Wikipedia leadership...make this notice/disclaimer a standard no matter WHAT it is.
I think I'm gonna put this rant (apologies) several other places in Wikipedia. It could improve quality everywhere. --StudiousReader (talk) 10:59, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
Yes, and not to mention the fact that simple two-way correlational studies miss significant factors (basically, the Cs that might be causal to A and B) that might be picked up in a multivariate correlational study.
I want to also point out that this research was carried out by Dolf Zillmann, who's research on pornography is very controversial, and tainted by bias toward strong socially conservatism that's built into the questionnaires he uses in his surveys. (Basically, Zillmann's ideas about "calousness toward women" don't mean what most liberals would think that means ā€“ if you believe in gay rights or that sex outside of marriage is OK, those are indicators of "callousness toward women" according to Zillmann.) If Zillmann's research is going to be quoted in this article, I think some information contextualizing Zillmann is called for. Iamcuriousblue (talk) 17:43, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Changes to Introduction Paragraph

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:

  • pornography as an addiction
  • the effects of pornography on couples' sexual health
  • pornography's role in mitigating the health risks of sexual abstinence for single males

Epidemiology

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)

Title

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)

Material recently added to this article

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 grindĀ :) Therefore, I am removing the problematic material. Kristen Eriksen (talk) 22:44, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Pages which aren't peer reviewed and are published on the websites of other advocacy organizations, such as this one [2], are likewise not reliable sources per Wikipedia:Verifiability#Reliable_sources. Even portions of mainstream newspaper articles can turn into unreliable sources if they simply restate material which isn't peer reviewed, attributing it to its original authors without any assertion of validity. Kristen Eriksen (talk) 23:07, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
I agree, and also the same with more recent edits. People's opinions do not count as scientific research - if that's allowed, then equally we ought to be able to cite opinions of people who claim the opposite. Also, much of the material added makes a Post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy, focusing on people known to be violent criminals, and noting that they often happen to use porn. This does not mean that using porn leads to violent crime (anymore than saying all rapists enjoy sex, therefore sex leads to rape; or all criminals breath oxygen, therefore breathing oxygen leads to crime....) Mdwh (talk) 15:27, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
Lets analyze few of the edits
  • How can you explain the removal of material from published from BBC and highly notable magazine like Christianity Today?[3] Both are reliable sources.
  • This Edit, adds "however these focus on whether violent criminals viewed pornography, rather than whether viewing pornography leads to violent crime." which is a original research. I want the above statement from a reliable source.
  • The summary of this edit , "what's wrong with fueling fantasies of consensual BDSM? misleading and pov; remove wikilink for violent porn - no evidence that the material he viewed is related to the UK law" is itself a POV. Read carefully , "What's wrong"Ā :) And these are research figures from a highly notable person . And how can violent porn be equated with UK law and unwikified?
  • This Edit removes material from a prostitution research center, can someone prove that the research center is unreliable? And note that this organization is supported by government and the researcher is Melissa Farlay, a highly notable researcher, this cannot be removed.
  • This edit is not valid, as per WP:LEAD, a lead is very necessary which provides insight into into the article.
  • This edit gives more weightage to Berl Kutchinsky... needless to say, this section is missing what his opponents say, and draws from a single source.
  • This edit removes the magazines, while it retains the other stuff... The person is a highly notable researcher.
  • This edit is plain vandalism, a well referenced material from an international journal was removed. "Snip stats" is not a correct summary, even the "graphs" are stats drawn from a single source... applying the same analogy, even the graphs can be remove.

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)

The reliability of the BBC and Christian Today is in the sense that "These people had these experiences". That is not in dispute. However, the Wikipedia text claimed that the authors were "researchers" who "have reported direct correlation between usage of pornography and visiting prostitutes". No they have not, as far as I can see? To generalise from a few anecdotal cases to a direct correlation is original research.
I think the anecdotes can be removed., agree with you, I will read these links in detail and see if it really makes sense. Bluptr (talk) 16:13, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
"I want the above statement from a reliable source." - the sources are those given yourself, which look at pornography usage and crime (e.g., "pornography has influenced several sex-related crime"). If you dispute the reliability of the sources, then we should remove them. It is also original research to make assumptions of a "link". If this is in dispute, then I suggest we remove the statement altogether and do not say anything one way or the other.
The "link" has been said by the FBI agents, referenced through out the section
"[opinion on BDSM] is itself a POV." - no, the burden is upon the one who wants to add material to the article, i.e., you. My point isn't that Journey Into Darkness is unreliable, but it is off-topic (and POV) to place tendencies towards BDSM under "Violent crime"! I have no problem with moving it into a neutral section (although "people who use BDSM porn are more likely to be into BDSM" seems a statement of the bleeding obvious to me, and could be said of any kind of material...)
If a reliable FBI researcher argues that sadomachism and BDSM leads to violence, this definitely has a place here. And I am sorry for the personal attack, it was in the heat of moment, sorry for that. This is not correct on my part. Bluptr (talk) 16:13, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
"And how can violent porn be equated with UK law and unwikified?" - read the article its linked to. It's about a UK law. Wikipedia is not a dictionary, so we don't wikilink every word that might have an article, we wikilink articles that are relevant to the word in context.
Agree with this one. Bluptr (talk) 16:13, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
Re [4], read my edit summary - I am not disputing the reliability, I am saying this is off-topic for effects of porn. I don't mind if you want to put it in an article on prostitution. (If sex slaves were forced to work at knifepoint, this clearly would not be an "effect of knives", or placed in a knife article - the appropriate place would obviously be an article on sex slavery.)
will check this, if the article been, "Studies on Pornography", this section makes sense.
Re: the lead, where is Wikipedia policy that states individual opinions should be in the lead as if they are representative of the article?
Yes, I have removed individual opinions.
I find it curious that you criticise "undue weight", when your edits have placed vast amounts of undue weight in the opposite direction... I also did not remove or add material - I simply moved it. Do you think that anecdotal experiences should be before scientific studies?
Please do not make accusations of vandalism - my reason for [5] is given in the summary. Again, there is no evidence that this is an effect of pornography.
I feel that this is not off-topic, see the effect part, "most frequent users of pornography were also the most frequent users of women in prostitution."
I agree with "Let the facts speak for themselves" - I am not disputing the facts, the problem is that facts (such as individual experiences) are being represented as scientific research (this article is supposed to be about "studies") and generalised claims (e.g., claims of a direct correlation, and causative links). Nor should we have a lead which makes conclusions about effects from porn from a handful of people. Remember that this article is not "correlation with porn and other things", it is "effects of porn", thus things which are caused by porn. Correlation does not imply causation, so including correlations in an article about effects is POV.
I will say that, "Studies on Pornography" is more apt, why cover only "effects"?
The alternative is that we dig out opinions from anyone who disputes these links (for which there must be plenty, especially if anecdotal experiences are allowed), and present them too.
Another possibility is that we rename this article from "effects" of pornography, to something that is less strong a word? Similarly drop the "Studies" - how about Opinions on pornography or Criticism of pornography? In these articles, it would be more appropriate to include the criticisms and opinions of anyone notable, without worrying that this is being presented by Wikipedia as a study that shows an actual effect of pornography.
Fine, "Studies on pornography" or even "Opinions on pornography", no probs.
I do not have time right now, so I have tagged this article until these problems can be resolved. What do other editors think? Mdwh (talk) 19:25, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
Yes I agree with what you say related to the lead part, and I have rewritten it with a more neutral word usage, from WP:WTA, for other things I will look into them and comment/make changes when I get time., Bluptr (talk) 15:58, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Reliable sources

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)

I agree with John254: we aren't trying to turn this article into an abridged mirror of obscenitycrimes.orgĀ :) As bad as it is to use content from that site in which academics provide alleged "research" which hasn't been validated by the peer-review standards of academia, it's even worse to use their quotations of FBI agents and other LEOs based on their subjective personal experiences, with no pretensions to research at all. I might as well write an essay about the benefits I've received through working in porn, how I've supported myself through college with just a few hours of work each week, the intense exhibitionistic pleasure that I feel from knowing that there are tens of thousands of people watching me having sex on video, then have it published on the pro-porn Free Speech Coalition's website, and include it in the article as an example of the economic and psychological health benefits that young women derive from working in pornĀ :) Well, my experience might be atypical, and if the article is going to describe the effects of porn on young female actresses, it needs to be based on research conducted in a systematic and statistically controlled manner, and validated through academic peer review. Otherwise, the article will decompose into a megabytes-long compilation of message board postingsĀ :( Kristen Eriksen (talk) 18:39, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
The article also still seems like it's giving lots of undue weight to the anti-porn position. And we really need to do something about an introductory paragraph filled with linguistic aberrations such as "The Epidemiological studies and Controlled studies have provided inconculsive insights into the problem of linking pornography with Sex Crimes."Ā :) Kristen Eriksen (talk) 18:48, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
Yes, I agree with John254, regarding removal of material from obscenitycrimes.org ( and thanks for pointing out ). Yes I must add material from reliable publishing houses and journals... Bluptr (talk) 05:28, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
You know, when asking for input on WP:RS/N [6], it's helpful to mention the article to which you wish to add the sources and provide a link to the talk page discussion. For determining source reliability, context is importantĀ :) Kristen Eriksen (talk) 19:54, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
To briefly address Bluptr's comments at WP:RS/N, the sources he proposes to include in the article are inappropriate as they do not reflect research on the effects of pornography which has been validated through academic peer review. Yes, as Bluptr's sources are a major newspaper and books by major non-academic publishers, they are reliable sources for the purpose of stating that "these academics and LEOs made these claims", but for an article entitled "Studies on effects of Pornography", we can and should require more, since Wikipedia:Verifiability#Reliable_sources states that

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.

Material that isn't legitimate research validated through academic peer review should not be dignified through characterization as "studies"Ā :) Kristen Eriksen (talk) 20:38, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
Let's be clear: in academia, peer review (when conducted under the auspices of a respected publisher) is the touchstone of research legitimacy. From our own article on peer review:

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.

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)
Yes, views of a single FBI agent, cannot be a "study", and we need information from well researched psychiatry journals. Bluptr (talk) 10:21, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Important studies left out/Sketchy sections

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:

  • Malamuth NM, Addison T, Koss M. (2000). Pornography and sexual aggression: are there reliable effects and can we understand them? Annual Review of Sex Research, 11:26ā€“91. PMIDĀ 11351835
  • Fisher WA, Grenier G. (1994). Violent pornography, antiwoman thoughts, and antiwoman acts: In search of reliable effects. Journal of Sex Research, 31:23ā€“38. (abstract)

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" ā€“ 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 ā€“ 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 ā€“ 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)

"Lab experiments" in "Controlled studies" section

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. ā€”AySz88\^-^ 01:52, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Source "Pornography, Public Acceptance and Sex Related Crime: A Review"

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 childrenā€™s production or use.</quote> ā€”Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.152.104.229 (talk) 18:49, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

human evolution and the effects of pornography on the world wide web.

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) .

Article cleanup and broadening scope

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)

The abstract is not very good

 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)

I have reverted your alteration of the intro, per WP:LEAD. This article is not just about pornography's effect on crime. Nor should it be. Various studies suggest that viewing pornography has other social effects, some of which are mentioned in this article. That's also why no citation tags are needed in the intro, because these things are already referenced below. As for the vast majority of the scientific community seeing no negative link between pornography and crimes, I have to disagree there. So what, there are positive links but no negative links...according to the vast majority of researchers? None at all? Nuh-uh. Unless there is a specific source showing and/or saying that, we should not say it.
I have to ask you, and I'll also ask it to you at what I'm sure is your registered account: Do you have some sort of WP:Conflict of interest with regard to the media's effect on society? I ask that because I have seen you (with your using different IP addresses) on several Wikipedia articles downplaying or removing information about negative media effects. Why do you believe that the media barely affects society negatively, contrary to the abundance of evidence that it can and does more than just a little, as much as it does positively? 122.72.0.113 (talk) 18:27, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
Oh, and I changed "healthy sexual relationships" to "long-lasting sexual relationships" in the intro, although I don't see what is unscientific about it since researchers proclaim what are healthy and unhealthy relationships all the time (platonic or sexual) and the source in the Controlled section is speaking of both (unhealthy and not long-lasting because of it).
And with regard to specifying "pedophilic acts," the Pedophilia article, which is pipelinked under "pedophilic," clarifies what it means...showing that one doesn't even technically have to be a pedophile to commit a pedophilic act. 122.72.0.113 (talk) 18:49, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
Well, since you PMed me on this, no you got the wrong person. I am not the person who posted above, although I do tend to find your comments about as POV as his/her. Also it is disappointing that you would leap to assume another editor has a conflict of interest, which is an ad hominem attack. We usually assume good faith here, even where we disagree, unless there is evidence to the contrary. I'll state emphatically I have no conflict of interest, do not work for any media company, do not have stock in them, do not play golf with them, etc. Are you satisfied? Avalongod (talk) 04:21, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
This having prodded me to talk a look at the page, I actually am in the middle of the other two positions. This page *should* be about more than crime, although at the moment it is not. However, 122...you DO need to provided cites if there is research out there on some of the topics you mention...which I am not aware of it existing (dehumanization, human trafficking, etc.). IF...you can provide cites for such research please do so and restore those, but only if you provide examples. The others I have swapped in I know there is research on, although it would be wise to include sections for those topics, otherwise what's the point in mentioning them. Avalongod (talk) 04:40, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
It's not about disagreeing with me. I don't have a strong opinion about the effects of pornography. I have a strong opinion about editors trying to exclude material simply because they don't like it. You say that you are not 84.132.80.170 at the Social effects of pornography article, but you two edit the same way, as I am certain that 84.132.80.170 was also the other IPs who recently tried to skew the article by removing negative information about viewing pornography, and you two both make comments about what you believe to be something researchers would or wouldn't say and what you believe to be "unscientific language," as though scholars never use words like "unhealthy relationships." Are you kidding me? And even if you aren't 84.132.80.170, you mean to tell me that you weren't any of the other IPs, that you did not edit this article until after I challenged 84.132.80.170? I highly doubt that, seeing as I followed one of the other IPs and that took me to some of the articles you are working on. This IP - IP 69.91.76.222 - is no doubt you. Just as this IP - IP 69.91.76.238 - is no doubt you. Not to mention, you'd been absent from editing under your registered account since March 1st and suddenly showed back up again on the 5th to reply to me. You are wrong that my comments suggesting the negative impact of the media are out of date. Researchers are continuously citing negative media effects, as can be seen on Google Books or Google Scholar, and that most certainly extends to viewing pornography. Yes, I have looked at scholarly papers. Not just blogs. And, yes, there is an adundance of research showing or otherwise suggesting that the media negatively affects people, just as there is a lot of research showing/suggesting that it positively affects people. Many men have stated that consistently viewing pornography led them to have unrealistic expectations of the types of sexual acts women want to engage in and that they were led to expect/desire these acts, when they wouldn't have if not for viewing porn. Hell, even this guy talks about it in his article "How Porn Is Ruining Anal Sex ā€“ And other ways porn is sex negative." There are also plenty of articles talking about how porn is making real sex less interesting to men. It's not like it's an unproven thing. And I say that as a guy who also watches porn and knows that it has desensitized me to certain sexual acts and has made it so that even viewing a naked woman doesn't immediately turn me on anymore. Yet I have not edited the Social effects of pornography article to say "Porn is bad, bad, bad" because I don't believe that it has to be. Only that it can be. So saying that you "could just as easily accuse [me] of having a conflict of interest, perhaps working for an anti-media advocacy group" is silly. My editing has not reflected that at all. And neither have my comments. Your editing, and some of your comments if you are 84.132.80.170, on the other hand? Have. I have no issue being cordial. I just hate POV-pushing edits that wrongly skew articles. There should generally be WP:Neutrality in our articles here, except for in the cases where there cannot be (such as the scientific community unanimously agreeing that smoking is bad).
And as for this article not only being about crime? Yes, it is about more than crime, as shown in the controlled section. Is the article mostly about crime? Yes. But it's not only about that. Nor should it be, as I said before. As for "dehumanization, human trafficking" and the examples you took out, I got that from the Anti-pornography movement article after reading through parts of the Pornography article. Desensitization should definitely be mentioned in the lead, since the article is addressing that. The correct option at the Desensitization disambiguation page is Desensitization (psychology), but that article needs major cleanup. 122.72.0.113 (talk) 09:17, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
It is ironic you state at one point that you have no strong opinion on the effects of pornography when the rest of your post clearly suggests otherwise. Obviously you have been selective in the articles you have read. The very page we are discussing cites scientific articles that disagree with the position you are stating. Perhaps you would do well to read some of those. As for editing in other pages (I assume you are referring to Adolescence), I did challenge some of the comments and statements made thereon, and if you read the talk page you'll see I was correct in most (but not all) of those cases. In the event other editors disagreed with me (Flyer22) we discussed the matter and came to a compromise we both agreed on. So I am not sure about what you are complaining...that I arbitrated disputes on how best to take a page with other invested editors until we were mutually satisfied. I'm sorry, sir/madam, but it seems to me that it is YOU who have a particular vision of "ownership" on the message on some of these pages. This rather silly lashing out and people who disagree with you, multiple people (although you assume all are one) is hardly collegial. I hope you will reconsider such behavior in the future.
As for research, if you say there is research being done on a particular topic you must cite some of the actual research being done, not just an anti-pornography wikipedia page saying such research exists. Actually took a look at the page and it doesn't say such research exists, only that some people argue porn could have those effects (not that they have evidence to prove it). Avalongod (talk) 21:12, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
Ok, look 122, in thinking about this some more....we could probably go back and forth on and on about which of us is most silly, most biased, etc. You don't like all of my edits (nor those of 84, which I have no control over), fine. Duly noted. You're not the first, won't be the last. I'm probably more skeptical when it comes to media effects, and tend to challenge some claims I don't feel are well supported...sometimes I'm right, sometimes I'm not. Welcome to the human condition. I don't mind you disagreeing with me any more than you say you don't mind people disagreeing with you. So howabout this...why don't we both calm down, assume that the other is acting in good faith, albeit with different perceptions...if we work together on some of these articles, we can probably get them well balanced. Does that sound acceptable? Avalongod (talk) 22:19, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
Er...I don't see how it's ironic that I state I don't have a strong opinion on the effects of pornography. That I'm saying it's a fact (as in many men have stated this) that viewing pornography has negatively affected many men's sex lives and that I don't want this downplayed in the article means that I have a strong opinion about the effects of pornography? I suppose wanting facts about negative effects presented and not downplayed in other articles makes me passionate about those topics too? Boy, you have a way of twisting words and seeing what you want to see. I get angry any time I see POV-editing that is downplaying anything having to do with research. It's funny that you say I have been selective in the articles I have read on media effects of pornography and that you point out that "the very page we are discussing cites scientific articles that disagree with the position [I am] stating," as though most research says pornography does not negatively affect people and as though the article doesn't present any negative material on pornography. Most of what is in that article is negative. It's not like most of it is saying that porn is a good thing. And let's not forget that I was mostly talking about how porn desensitizes men to a variety of sexual acts, normalizes sexual acts that are not as common as others or aren't common at all, and makes sex less interesting. All points that have been brought up by doctors and psychologists, and reported in research. And moving on from there, it's downright insulting (almost as insulting as you referring to me as a "sir/madam," when I've told you before that I am male) that you would point out only the Adolescence article, as though that is not you (69.91 [fill in the other numbers here]) at the other articles. You expect me to believe that you are not those IPs, when you edit the same way -- most of the same articles with the same type of edit summaries -- and showed up not long after these IPs to make exactly the same or very similar edits? Not to mention how they stop(ped) editing right after you show(ed) up to continue the same work, and these articles are not very high-traffic-editing articles? Forget IP 84.132.80.170. You are most definitely IPs 69.91.76.222 and 69.91.76.238. Looking at the adolescence talk page discussion you took part in shows this just as clearly as your (registered account) and those IPs' contributions. There's also Talk:Adolescent sexuality in the United States and other talk pages. If you can't even be honest about this, how do you expect me to trust you and work with you while assuming good faith? Maybe I should ask other editors to weigh in on whether or not you are these IPs (the two IPs that share the bulk of your contibutions), so that you can see how it is very much a matter of WP:Common sense that you are. You call it "lashing out [at] people who disagree with [me]," when all I did was express a concern about the very clear slant of your edits in every media-effects related article. You are always pushing for a "Negative effects? What negative effects? There couldn't possibly be any negative effects" angle. Excuse me for being concerned.
As for citing, per WP:Lead, the lead does not have to be cited if the same information is referenced in the lower body of the article, and some of what I transported from the other article is. So I may have made a mistake in including all of it. But there is enough evidence to support some of what I added to the lead, which is why that material is still up there. 122.72.0.113 (talk) 07:56, 8 March 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)

Sorry I was lazy and haven't been back here a bit (I'm sure I'll be blamed for any anonymous edits taking place in the meantime.) Ā ;) I'm honestly not sure what the best organization is though. Right now it has a hodgepodge feel, and a lot of the writing strays into advocacy, which is not surprising given how open this topic is to the culture wars. I think in general it needs a lot of careful and objective editing, and some better organization. Perhaps divide into sections for "evidence porn is bad" and "evidence porn is not so bad"? Would that be better organization? Avalongod (talk) 05:37, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
In any case, I don't think it makes sense to explain what controlled and epidemiological studies are in the article. The article is not about research design. I think the concepts should just be made "clickable" 60.241.126.187 (talk) 10:02, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

JF self-sourced edits

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)

Well, self-sources can be relevant if they are peer-reviewed and balanced with other sources, and presented in a non-advocacy manner. However in the cases of JF, the sources appear to have an "advocacy" tone, that would probably constitute original research. I advocate removing the additions. Avalongod (talk) 05:32, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
Although a rewrite may be reasonable. However it might make sense to mix in to some of the other material. Not sure that stuff deserves its own section. My biggest problem is where the edits "interpret" the data from the articles, sometimes in sensationalist ways. Avalongod (talk) 05:34, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

Review of available sources + additional sources that deserve mention

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 ā€” Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.244.38.161 (talk) 22:21, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

Very One Sided article

The article fails to give the positive side of porn any real length. ā€” 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." ā€” Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.3.22.18 (talk) 17:49, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

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 ā†’ Effects of pornography ā€“ 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)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

WP:MED, studies and accuracy

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)

@Flyer22 - Thank You for noting the supporting text/references in the lower portion of the article - I *entirely* agree with you - the relevant edits have now been reverted to the original text - Thanks again for your related notes - and - Enjoy!Ā :) Drbogdan (talk) 03:05, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
Well, you may have noticed by now, but what you added back was changed; if the text is to stay like that, it needs a typo fix, the removal of two commas and the addition of "or." Either way, the addition of "many" was not accurate, depending on how you classify "many." I don't think that there have many studies on that matter. Flyer22 (talk) 03:11, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
And, yes, I see that you added the previous text back again. Looks like some discussion is going to be needed on a satisfactory lead on that matter for more than just you and me. But I don't have anything more to state on it than what I stated above. Flyer22 (talk) 03:18, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
Ā Done - yes, restored the original text - without the cn-template - hopefully, this is *entirely* ok - enjoy!Ā :) Drbogdan (talk) 03:26, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

Opposition to the point made about Pornography having no evidence for addiction

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>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Television_addiction</ref>RichardUK2014 (talk) 15:05, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for your comments - the reference you cited - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Television_addiction - in your edit seems to be WP:CIRCULAR - see WP:RELIABLE for a better source - also, seems the following may apply => WP:NOR, WP:NPOV, WP:NOTFORUM, WP:NOTSOAPBOX - in any case - hope this helps in some way - Enjoy!Ā :) Drbogdan (talk) 16:45, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
The medical consensus in 2013 was:
American Psychiatric Association (2013). Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (FifthĀ ed.). Arlington, VA: American Psychiatric Publishing. p.Ā 481. ISBNĀ 978-0-89042-555-8. 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.
Apparently, no revolution took place in the medical world since then. You have to have extremely persuasive evidence in order to posit that there is clear and decisive evidence for pornography being an addiction. A quote in the article says that later pornography could be recognized as an addiction (say 10 or 20 years later). But now it's still 2014 and no persuasive evidence has been produced. A self-help forum of people persuaded by a fringe anti-porn activist who lacks any credentials as a researcher and developed a phobia for orgasms won't do. We need authoritative secondary sources, see WP:MEDRS and WP:MEDASSESS. Tgeorgescu (talk) 16:53, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
By that quote I meant what dr. Kruger says at http://www.macleans.ca/society/life/can-swearing-off-porn-improve-your-life/ Tgeorgescu (talk) 17:15, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
An article which supports the status of sex addiction as a mental disorder also implies that avoiding sex is a mental disorder, saying "In contrast, Dr. Carnes (IITAP 2011) defines sexual anorexia (a repetitive behavior) as ā€œan obsessive state in which the physical, mental, and emotional task of avoiding sex dominates one's life.ā€ Like self-starvation with food or compulsive dieting or hoarding of money, deprivation of sex can make one feel powerful and defended against all hurts." Quoted from https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4040958/ Tgeorgescu (talk) 18:48, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

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 alreadyRichardUK2014 (talk) 14:23, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

Persistent Additions of Disputed Material by User:Chrislyte.

{{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!Ā :) Drbogdan (talk) 21:02, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

I really do hope we can reach a consensus. Because it shocking to me that one editor Drbogdan has the ability to suppress peer-reviewed studies, while simultaneously citing lay articles that have nothing to do with "The Effects of Pornography." This same editor has yet to provide a single reason for these actions. Instead, the editor hides the debate (and the studies) under the inappropriate "Not a forum or a soapbox" label.Chrislyte (talk) 21:14, 2 August 2014 (UTC)Chrislyte ā€” Chrislyte (talk ā€¢ contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
@User:Chrislyte - Thank you for your comments - No, as before, I've not cited the article(s) you mention (news to me) - Yes, a discussion about improving the article and working toward some WP:CONSENSUS among editors has always been welcome of course - at the moment, there does not seem to be any agreement among editors for your views and/or references - WP:BALANCE and WP:NPOV may be issues of course - your (WP:WALLOFTEXT?) posts on the talk page portend to help improve the article - but may only be there to push your pov (WP:POVPUSH?) instead - on the talk page - and in the main article - perhaps others can help sort this all out - in any case - Enjoy!Ā :) Drbogdan (talk) 22:37, 2 August 2014 (UTC)
@Drbogdan - Improving this article would be to allow peer-reviewed research that is on topic (porn use affecting sexual function), in place of lay articles that are off topic (quotes about masturbation). Take for example the Effects on sexual function section. Drbogdan continues to cite a lay article that has nothing to do with the sexual effects of porn use. Citation 10 is Witt, Emily. "Hands Off". New York Magazine - as mentioned about 5 times in the now hidden talk page. The quotes cited are:
"Every doctor and psychologist I spoke with informed me that ā€œthereā€™s no evidenceā€ to link masturbation to sexual performance, and that itā€™s an overĀ¬simplification to think that frequent masturbation is the cause of delayed ejaculation."
"Paduch also cited studies that found that men who ejaculated multiple times a week faced less risk of erectile dysfunction later in life."
Drbogdan has yet to answer my simple question posed several times on the talk page - "Why do you keep citing quotes about masturbation from a lay article in a Wiki page about the effects of pornography?"
Citation 11 in "Effects on sexual function" is Ley, et al. Drbogdan cites this quote:
"While no empirical claims tying erectile function and ā€˜porn addictionā€™ were identified, this is a frequent media claim"
This claim by Ley et al, is no longer valid as empirical evidence has been published by the Cambridge University - Neural Correlates of Sexual Cue Reactivity in Individuals with and without Compulsive Sexual Behaviours. This study found that porn use caused ED and low libido in 60% of subjects identified as compulsive porn users.
A second study by the Max Plank institute, published in JAMA Psychiatry, found less sexual arousal correlating with the amounts of porn used, and years of use. See - Brain Structure and Functional Connectivity Associated With Pornography Consumption: The Brain on Porn
Again, no explanation was given by Drbogdan for replacing 2 recent studies by elite institutions, with an out of date citation (Ley, et al) whose lead author has never published any research. ā€”Ā Preceding unsigned comment added by Chrislyte (talk ā€¢ contribs) 03:46, 4 August 2014 (UTC) ā€” Chrislyte (talk ā€¢ contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
@User:Chrislyte - FWIW - Thank you for your comments - no, as noted several times before, I did not add the citation you mention - reverting your disputed material to the original text/refs may have contained this citation - which may, nonetheless, be preferred to your proposed, but disputed, material at present - AFAIK - no other editor agrees that your disputed material should replace the original text/refs at this time - seems issues of WP:MEDRS, WP:BALANCE and WP:NPOV have been raised with your material - in any case - hope this helps in some way - Thanks again for your comments - and - Enjoy!Ā :) Drbogdan (talk) 13:14, 4 August 2014 (UTC)
@Drbogdan - So you repeatability hit revert without considering the content of what you deleted or what you have reverted. I guess that says it all. Chrislyte (talk) 15:49, 4 August 2014 (UTC)Chrislyte ā€” Chrislyte (talk ā€¢ contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
@Chrislye - No - those are your words - not mine - more simply => no other editor agrees with *your proposed material*, for the reasons noted above, at this time - the issue is not me - or you - the issue is that *your proposed material* could be better afaik atm - Enjoy!Ā :) Drbogdan (talk) 16:06, 4 August 2014 (UTC)
@Drbogdan No matter how you spin this, you are the editor deleting peer-reviewed studies on the sexual effects of Internet pornography and replacing them with off-topic quotes about masturbation from lat articles. The fact that one of your fellow editors - Tgeorgescu - condones this breach of intellectual honesty is an example of why so many people avoid Wikipedia as a source. Yours and Tgeorgescu inability to engage on the talk page with any coherent response can be seen by all. Chrislyte (talk) 17:51, 6 August 2014 (UTC)Chrislyte
As I told on another talk page, I am not principally opposed to the idea of pornography addiction and when it will become part of medical orthodoxy, Wikipedia will write that in big shinny letters. The problem is that we aren't there yet (if you don't believe me read what dr. Kruger said in the cited article: ā€œThe whole notion of what goes on in someoneā€™s brain when theyā€™re sexually excited is just starting to be evaluatedā€). So the intellectually honest attitude is to wait and see when and if that happens. We cannot make big leaps of faith to a presumed future and pretend that the pornography addiction would already be medical orthodoxy, it isn't, and claiming that it is just make the problem worse. All very limited population size brain studies could be due to bogus statistical significance. At a significance of 0.05 every 1 in 20 medical studies will throw a false positive, that's why primary sources are of very limited relevance. As prof. dr. Martijn B. Katan said pertaining to his own field (nutrition), one study means no studies. As simple as that. Only lots of studies mean evidence. Tgeorgescu (talk) 18:07, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
@Tgeorgescu - This particular thread has been about Effects on sexual function Drbogdan has repeatedly cited 1) a lay article about masturbation, not porn use, and 2) Ley, et al which is no longer valid because its claim is that there are no peer-reviewed studies on the sexual effects on porn. There are such studies, cited above. I would like to resolve the "effects on sexual function" dispute as an off-topic lay article and out of date Ley et al, should not take precedence over peer-reviewed studies directly on point by top institutions.
As for the effects of pornography use, there exist dozens of studies, including longitudinal, that show negative effects. I have held off citing those as I assumed you and Drbogdan would simply delete my content containing those citations.
I will continue to challenge wiki content based on Ley et al, as most of the claims put forth in that "review" are not supported by the studies cited in the review. We need to examine their source materials, and the studies they omitted.Chrislyte (talk) 21:34, 9 August 2014 (UTC)Chrislyte
That is original research. Ley et al. is a WP:MEDRS compliant source. Tgeorgescu (talk) 22:51, 9 August 2014 (UTC)
Tgeorgescu Ley et al. is no longer valid as the only claim it made was that there had been no studies. That's it. Since its publication Cambridge university published a study on compulsive porn users, where it was reported that porn use caused ED. The second s citation is about masturbation, not porn's effects. Please limit your citations to studies or articles about porn. This is not a wiki about masturbation.Chrislyte (talk) 23:03, 10 October 2014 (UTC)Chryslyte
@Chrislyte - I *entirely* agree with the comments made by Tgeorgescu above - also - FWIW - please see WP:AGF & WP:NPA => as before, *your proposed material* could be better - and more agreeable to other editors - Enjoy!Ā :) Drbogdan (talk) 19:58, 6 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 RonhjonesĀ Ā (Talk) 22:12, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

@Ronhjones - Thank you for your comments - should note that @User:Chrislyte continues to add disputed text to the article - and without agreement from any other editor - {{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!Ā :) Drbogdan (talk) 22:37, 2 August 2014 (UTC)
@Ronhjones Thanks. I have contacted Wikipedia. The other editor, Drbogdan has refused to engage on the talk page. Instead, he has hidden the talk section under "WP:MED, studies and accuracy".Chrislyte (talk) 03:54, 4 August 2014 (UTC)Chrislyte ā€” Chrislyte (talk ā€¢ contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Unrelated quote

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)

As I said, it is a bizarre argument that pornography without masturbation would produce erectile dysfunction. The whole argument that pornography would lead to erectile dysfunction is because some claim that excessive masturbation produces erectile dysfunction, and pornography simply implies more masturbation. See it as a modus tollens:
pornography leads to masturbation;
masturbation does not lead to erectile dysfunction;
therefore pornography does not lead to erectile dysfunction. Tgeorgescu (talk) 21:24, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
Besides Witt discusses fapstronauts: people who avoid porn and masturbation like pest. Tgeorgescu (talk) 21:26, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
Corntrooper - This logic is tortured and nonsensical. This wiki is about pornography, not masturbation. No one is claiming that masturbation causes erectile dysfunction. Porn users condition their sexual arousal to watching porn videos, clicking from video to video, constant novelty, searching for new videos and new genres, along with maintaining a voyeuristic position. When they try to masturbate without porn, they cannot achieve an erection, because they cannot engage in the aforementioned activities. Please, no more straw men about masturbation and ED. Let's stick with porn use causing erectile dysfunction. Chrislyte (talk) 22:48, 10 October 2014 (UTC)ChrisLyte
The majority of men who masturbate use porn; why don't they develop erectile dysfunction? Let's assume that 90% of masturbating men use porn and 10% don't. Why then those 90% don't suffer from erectile dysfunction? Your recipe is porn + masturbation = erectile dysfunction. Why does this does not happen in the real world (as shown by statistics)? Porn isn't a post-2000 invention, your father and his father had porn available, if they wished. And their generations masturbated, too, with porn. Tgeorgescu (talk) 00:46, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
Very few men are capable to have erection-at-command (i.e., regardless of erotic stimulation). Those who are capable of it are mostly the porn actors (see the HBO documentary Pornucopia for details). So, it is a weird idea that not being capable of erection-at-command amounts to erectile dysfunction. Erectile dysfunction would be unable to have an erection bereft of naked partners or other erotic simulation (such as porn). And of course nudists are known for not getting aroused when they see naked people, so that does not work for them. Tgeorgescu (talk) 09:36, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
There was already a lengthy discussion about it at Talk:Masturbation/Archive 10#The bald claim that NO causal harm is known from masturbation is false. This is an important error on a .22top importance.22 page on sexuality.. So, the argument about porn causing erectile dysfunction is a rehashed version of Wilson's masturbation phobia. I mean that guy is so funny as to pretend that orgasm is forbidden even for a married couple! Tgeorgescu (talk) 19:37, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

Definitions and variants of pornography

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. ā€” Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.18.17.180 (talk) 01:59, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

Unreliable medical sources

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)

@Tgeorgescu Ley et al. is not accepted by PubMed, and it misrepresents it's primary sources mor simply doesn't provide ciations for claims. For example, this article cites Ley, et al for the following:
  • "An academic review notes that a large, lucrative industry promises treatments for "pornography addiction"
Clearly this claim is taken from page 1 of ley et, al, where the authors say:
  • "Since a large, lucrative industry has promised treatments for pornography addiction despite this poor evidence, scientific psychologists are called to declare the emperor (treatment industry) has no clothes (supporting evidence)."
However, there is no citation for the above claim. Making a claim without a citation is more than unreliable. Please cite a source that references an underlying study on the "lucrative nature" of this fabricated industry.Chrislyte (talk) 02:55, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
I have already answered that claim upon your talk page. Tgeorgescu (talk) 03:11, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

Undergraduate essay

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)

Drive-by tagging: Template:POV

As seen here and here, I reverted RoshuĀ BangalĀ (talkĀ Ā· 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: RoshuĀ BangalĀ (talkĀ Ā· 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)

Start of articles and its name

About this edit, 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)

I am correct about the lead, per what I stated in this and this edit. Read WP:Editorializing, WP:Lead sentence and WP:BOLDTITLE.
As for your proposal to retitle the article to any of the qualifiers you suggested above, or any other qualifiers you suggest, I'm against it. I already told you in the discussion you had with G S Palmer, "the article is titled Effects of pornography, not Proposed effects of pornography, or something similar; nor should it be. Pornography does come with effects, but it's the 'to what extent' and 'how much of it is medical' aspects that are being debated. [...] Internet sex addiction, pornography addiction, pornophobia and STDs in the porn industry are indeed all effects of pornography, as noted in the literature because people (mostly men) have cited them as effects. Of course, pornography affects people differently, but that doesn't negate that all of these aspects have been cited by reliable sources as effects of pornography. [...] An effect does not have to mean a medical effect. I am speaking of any effect of pornography, be it social, physical or medical (meaning psychological as well)." If you want the article moved, then start a WP:Requested moves discussion; I'll oppose, per what I've already stated. Flyer22 (talk) 02:37, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
I also add that "effect" doesn't always mean a proven effect. Flyer22 (talk) 02:41, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
"I also add that "effect" doesn't always mean a proven effect", but, the article on effects, should then start at least with the proven effects? The effects, for most (males, at least, is documented) sexual release. The effect isn't (for most, or nearly as many) that it leads them to "research". Say for [effects of Gravity], the effect is for "things to fall down" (for a common sense, description, not starting with the complicated, gravity bends spacetime (that is also true) or leads physicists to study gravity (that is only an indirect effect, and didn't happen until Newton, continuing to this day for a small population of the universe). That article starts with "Gravity or gravitation is a natural phenomenon by which all things attract one another" (compare to the bullshit Law of attraction (New Thought)) and "falling" is in the picture next to the lead.
Per WP:LEAD: "The lead should be able to stand alone as a concise overview", starting with e.g. "multiple outcomes [..] rape, domestic violence" is just WP:NPOV WP:BIAS in my view and unproven, when that is taken over the most likely outcome. Would you start Effects of movies or music or erotica or videogames, with leads to rape and violence? Or "made to entertain"? comp.arch (talk) 14:43, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
I don't at all see why the lead should start with this bit (I've already been over why); that is a poor WP:Lead sentence, even more so than the current lead sentence. You are using WP:BIAS incorrectly; that is a WP:Essay about systemic bias. And even if you mean WP:Neutral point of view#Bias in sources and/or WP:BIASED#Biased or opinionated sources, you are still wrong. Research on effects of pornography is mostly concerned with exactly what the second sentence of the lead stated: "potential influences on rape, domestic violence, sexual dysfunction, difficulties with sexual relationships, and child sexual abuse." That is clear by lower parts of the article as well. And that is why the lead is that way; it reflects the article's content. If the effects of movies mostly concerned potential influences on rape, domestic violence, sexual dysfunction, difficulties with sexual relationships, and child sexual abuse, then, yes, that lead should reflect that. The effects of movies is entirely differently than the effects of pornography, however.
That stated, since the lower part of the article begins with the topic of how pornography affects sexual function, and whether or not it affects sexual function in other ways, I have changed the lead so that it includes domestic violence, rape and child sexual abuse as the final listings, after "sexual dysfunction" and "difficulties with sexual relationships." I also tweaked it so that this is part of the lead sentence, and added "sexual function." This is seen here and here. Flyer22 (talk) 22:50, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
Your recent edits are a step in the right direction. The bit you object to and moved, and I thanked you for, I then summarized in the lead and you took it out of the lead. An article should be summarized in the lead. This bit, is probably the only reliable ("most", vs. other effects: "purported") "effect of pornography". If it isn't in the lead, the name of the article should be changed, or else a non-neutral banner template put in. You say "That is clear by lower parts", but while lower parts/main text, should be summarized in the lead, the article (and lead) should follow from the articles title (saying "effects", not "research") not the other way around. See: WP:DUE-violation "prominence of placement".
As an analogy: While, I can't find Effects of sugar or Effects of drugs (or similar titles), they should not start with "addiction" (then, tooth decay and then, sweet), or a chapter on it, they should start with the uncontroversial, something like "sugar activates the Sweetness taste buds" (sugar has a "Health effects"-section way down nr. 9). The closest, I found for drugs is: Recreational drug use starting with "Recreational drug use is the use of a drug (legal, controlled, or illegal) with the primary intention to alter the state of consciousness (through alteration of the central nervous system) in order to create positive emotions and feelings. [..] "high"." Then only in paragraph two: "Psychological disorders such as depression, trauma, social anxiety, and schizophrenia have also been claimed by some people".
Compulsion or addiction always requires some "feel good" or "high" first, for the possibility (of addiction)? comp.arch (talk) 10:01, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
For the last time, this bit does not belong in the lead. Yes, the lead is meant to summarize the article; I've already stated that. It's meant to summarize its most important points. "Summarize" does not mean "repeat." And the lead is usually not for summarizing minor parts of the article. The first bit you added to the lead is a minor part of the article (whether placed in the lead or lower), and is currently summarized in the lead by the words "including potential influences on sexual function and sexual dysfunction." This other bit you added to the lead, which I also reverted, was also a poor start to the lead, for reasons I've already mentioned. The current WP:Lead sentence is not great, but it is not a WP:POV violation of any sort (meaning not a WP:Undue weight violation either) that it begins by stating "Research concerning the effects of pornography is concerned with multiple outcomes, including potential influences on sexual function and sexual dysfunction, difficulties with sexual relationships, domestic violence, rape and child sexual abuse."
Your analogies are poor. I told you: Research on effects of pornography is mostly concerned with sexual function, sexual dysfunction, difficulties with sexual relationships, domestic violence, rape and child sexual abuse. So, of course, this Wikipedia article on the effects of pornography is mostly going to be about that and begin by noting that. The lead does not begin by talking about addiction; it works its way into talking about addiction. And it does that because addiction is a major aspect of discussion when it comes to the effects of pornography. The effects of pornography is first and foremost concerned with sexual function/sexual dysfunction; and addiction, as well as problematic Internet pornography viewing (which may or may not be addiction), are clearly a huge part of that. So it makes sense that the article would begin with this section.
There is not a lot of positive talk in the academic literature with regard to the effects of pornography; if there were, you would have a point when it comes to citing WP:Undue weight. At this point in time, you are citing Wikipedia's rules wrongly, and you have made no valid point about tagging this article with Template:POV. I am tired of repeating myself, and do not want to continue this discussion with you. I suggest you look for outside opinions on this matter via WP:Dispute resolution, since others watching this talk page are not yet weighing in on this discussion. I might point WP:Med to this discussion. This is a poor article, and it doesn't need more poor editing. Flyer22 (talk) 04:41, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
I agree, we seem to have reached an impasse. If the title of the article was "Research on effects on pornography", you would have a better point with "I told you: Research on effects of pornography is mostly concerned with sexual function", summarizing the most voluminous research. The title is different, and I'm also starting to repeat myself, the "most" reliable effect seems to trump research, that is unreliable or contradicting. See: "trivializes sexual child abuse" based on a "prison interview" (a sample size of 1) vs. "found that the number of reported cases of child sex abuse dropped markedly immediately after the ban on sexually explicit materials was lifted in 1989". Having "potential influences [..] difficulties with [..] rape and child sexual abuse" in the lead seems WP:WEASEL and biased, over the proven effect. "potential influences on sexual function" is just very vague, could it not mean something completely different than "porn just works as intended"(TM): "more" ejaculations on the day of watching porn. comp.arch (talk) 09:26, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

WP:MEDRS

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)

@Tgeorgescu Then why do you allow Steele et al all on Pornography addiction - As for the DSM specifically considering "porn addiction" and rejecting it, that did not occur.
So let's address this - How can you justify deleting a peer-reviewed review which is now published in PubMed (Neuroscience of Internet Pornography Addiction: A Review and Update), while simultaneously allowing a review (Ley et al.) that is not published in PubMed? I request that your reinstate the section written about this review. --Gaborlewis (talk) 21:28, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
It is published by a predatory open access publishing, therefore it fails WP:MEDRS. Note that it isn't MedLine indexed. Tgeorgescu (talk) 21:32, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
@Tgeorgescu That's a lie. It's not a predatory journal. It's PuBmed indexed and you are trying you keep it out. Ley et al is not indexed anywhere, and you call it an "academic review". How does one appeal blatant gate-keeping? http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26393658 ā€”Ā Preceding unsigned comment added by Gaborlewis (talk ā€¢ contribs) 21:40, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
I have reverted a source from a predatory open access publishing, namely MDPI. It fails WP:MEDRS and it is an attempt to game the system. Source: Jeffrey Beall (18 February 2014), Chinese Publisher MDPI Added to List of Questionable Publishers, Scholarly Open Access: Critical analysis of scholarly open-access publishing. Tgeorgescu (talk) 21:53, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
Kirsten Weir claims in APA Monitor that it did occur. Does any source claim that it did not occur? Tgeorgescu (talk) 22:00, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
@Tgeorgescu Do you have a source that says that Behavioral Sciences is predatory? Link - http://www.mdpi.com/journal/behavsci You can't use this as an excuse. This paper is peer-reviewed, with neuroscientists as c0-authors, and is pub-med indexed. Ley et al isn't. Two of the authors come from this research team - https://www.uni-due.de/kognitionspsychologie/index_eng.shtml
Matthias Brand (PhD) and Christian Laier (PhD) are probably the world's foremost authorities in the neurospsychology of cybersex addiction, having published numerous studies directly on this subject. Dr. Brand is Department Head (Psychology-Cognition) at University of Duisburg-Essen, and has co-authored no less than 166 studies. Dr. Laier, is a recent graduate, and has already co-authored 16 papers that appear in PubMed, and more in publications that are not indexed in PubMed.
Dr. Hatch has a doctorate degree in psychology (PhD), is a former university professor with partial specialization in research methods.
Dr Hajela has a doctorate degree in medicine (MD), a Master of Public Health (MPH) from the Harvard University, and an undergraduate degree in physics. Dr Hajela is a past president of the Canadian Society of Addiction Medicine (CSAM), a member of the International Society of Addiction Medicine (ISAM), and is a Fellow of the American Society of Addiction Medicine (ASAM). Please note that Dr Hajela was the chair of the ASAM committee that developed the neuroscience-based medical definition of addiction. As such, Dr Hajela is among the world's leading experts in the neuroscience of addiction.ā€”Ā Preceding unsigned comment added by Gaborlewis (talk ā€¢ contribs)
It's clear what you are doing.ā€”Ā Preceding unsigned comment added by Gaborlewis (talk ā€¢ contribs)

with low publishing fees paid by authors or their institutions.

ā€”ā€Šhttp://www.mdpi.com/journal/behavsci
Quoted by Tgeorgescu (talk) 22:35, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
For more information see vanity press. Tgeorgescu (talk) 22:49, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
They have advanced degrees, some have professorships, and all they could reach is publishing the article as SFAs (self-financing authors)? Perhaps you should read the basic requirements mentioned at WP:SOURCES. Tgeorgescu (talk) 00:41, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
@ Tgeorgescu From the Wiki page on MDPI: It is considered a predatory open access publishing company publishing journals of dubious quality by Jeffrey Beall.[3] Following Beall's criticism of MDPI, the Open Access Scholarly Publishers Association (OASPA) conducted an investigation in April 2014 and concluded that MDPI continues to meet the OASPA Membership Criteria.[4]
You are are relying on a single blog post, by a single blogger to prevent the inclusion of a PubMed peer-reviewed paper. In opposition to your single 18-month old blog post is the Open Access Scholarly Publishers Association (OASPA), which has concluded that MDPI is not predatory and meets the OASPA Membership Criteria.
Evidence that issues put forth by a single blogger are resolved (excerpts from findings):
Investigations have encompassed review of internal correspondence at MDPI, detailed information on the handling of peer-review, decision making and reviewer reports, plus external comments, blogs and websites. Based on our findings we feel satisfied that MDPI continue to meet the OASPA Membership Criteria.
MDPI have been extremely cooperative throughout this process and have shared many documents and evidence of correspondence with the OASPA Membership Committee. We are grateful for their openness during this period.
It's clear that Tgeorgescu tried to find anything to prevent the inclusion of this review. This is old news, and it has been resolved. I have lodged a formal complaint against Tgeorgescu with Wikipedia. Gaborlewis (talk) 03:41, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
"Fees paid by authors" is the very definition of vanity press. Tgeorgescu (talk) 08:50, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
In order to assure you that I'm not here to game the system, I have opened a discussion at Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Vanity_press_or_MEDRS-compliant_source?. Tgeorgescu (talk) 09:09, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

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

ā€”ā€ŠWP:SCHOLARSHIP
Quoted by Tgeorgescu (talk) 18:37, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

Tgeorgescu Is gaming the system

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 Beallā€™s List, however, I have been following some of Beallā€™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 donā€™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 ā€œPredatory Publishingā€?

QUOTED "Beallā€™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 ā€œpredatorā€), and some of them less so. One of the more subtle reasons for the controversy around Beallā€™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 itselfā€”a charge to which Beall provided a fair amount of ammunition when he wrote an impassioned attack on the OA movement in the journal tripleC."

3) Beyond Beallā€™s List

QUOTED: Beallā€™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 Beallā€™s work is his evaluation of OA publishers from less economically developed countries. Crawford, Karen Coyle, and Jill Emery have all noted Beallā€™s bias against these publishers.10,11,12

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

QUOTED: I didnā€™t read all of Beallā€™s blog posts. I honestly donā€™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 libelā€”but being sued for unfortunate reasons doesnā€™t automatically make the defendant a saint. As with a number of other people whoā€™ve been involved with and writing about OA for years, I was growing increasingly nervous about Beallā€™s growing stridency about ā€œpredatoryā€ OA publishersā€” 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 Beallā€™s Critique of Open Access

QUOTED: Beallā€™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)

Summary of the problem

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)

@Tgeorgescu You are citing a sex addiction article, That would be a different wiki page. Please stick to the subject at hand, which is pornography. You have yet to cite a reliable source that specifically states that the DSM5 formally reject "pornography addiction". Please limit your citations that that specific phrase. Please, no more blog posts - I want the APA stating that porn addiction was formally rejected.--Gaborlewis (talk) 21:35, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
You have the APA Monitor cited (the other APA, still a very important APA). Tgeorgescu (talk) 21:36, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
@Tgeorgescu I want the phrase "porn addiction". You cannot provide it. Sex addiction is not porn addiction - that's why it's a separate wiki page.Gaborlewis (talk) 21:45, 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.

ā€”ā€ŠKirsten Weir, op. cit.
Quoted by Tgeorgescu (talk) 21:48, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
Tgeorgescu Still no citation. A true gate keeper.Gaborlewis (talk) 22:24, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
Generally the title of an article defines its subject. So, you may want to read its title in order to understand its subject. Tgeorgescu (talk) 22:29, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
I'll ask again. Please cite an APA source that uses the phrase "porn addiction". Is that so hard to comprehend. You do know that Wikipedia has separate pages for porn addiction and for sex addiction. That's because they are two different entities. Gaborlewis (talk) 14:56, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
That's WP:IDHT. Tgeorgescu (talk) 15:11, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
See Wikipedia:No original research/Noticeboard/Archive 29#What the DSM-5 team did not do. Tgeorgescu (talk) 15:32, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
Do mind that the DSM (APA) position in respect to pornography addiction is verified to pages 481, 797ā€“798 of DSM-5. So it's not just the given quote, you have to read three pages of DSM-5 for verifying the claim. Tgeorgescu (talk) 16:17, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

About revert on sperm competition

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)

Read WP:MEDRS carefully; in other words, read past the "Primary sources should generally not be used for biomedical content." part of it in the introduction, and understand why primary sources generally should not be used for medical content, especially for the type of content you added. See, for example, its Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources (medicine)#Respect secondary sources section. Per that section alone, asserting that what you are adding is "truth" is highly dubious. When it comes to medical/health content, WP:MEDRS is the general rule. Something being verifiable does not mean it should be added. Also see the WP:Not truth essay, which is clear about how WP:Verifiability truly works, and notes its previous "verifiability, not truth" mantra. Flyer22 (talk) 00:42, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
Also, nowhere did I state that sperm competition does not occur in humans (seems you need to read up on its relation to humans if you think it's only attributed to non-humans); the content you added is about more than just sperm competition. Flyer22 (talk) 00:51, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
Well, I thought when you reverted you had just overlooked the primary source, thinking the secondary source was not good. Now it seems your issue wasn't the primary one. Reading further: "Controversies or uncertainties in medicine should be supported by reliable secondary sources describing the varying viewpoints." I'm not sure, do you not like Psychology Today as a WP:SECONDARY source? I'm a little new too editing controversial articles or medical articles. WP:MEDRS is a little new to me, it seems from the example given "Vitamin E supplements", understandably, be very concerned about sources as long-term effects in biology are just very difficult to know. Here, the effect is biological yes, but very short term-effect, and not hard to believe (why I brought, non-humans up, otherwise I would have been skeptical); thus I thought the material I'm sourcing NOT "controversial" or to have "uncertainties", one to the next point:
It also seems your issue isn't (only) the sources (I was just going by your edit summary in the revert at first), I think I at least summarized the secondary one correctly (hopefully that one did summarize the primary one..). The "type of content" I added: an immediate effect (while non-obvious, interesting/helpful to, say couples trying to conceive where likely no other (physical) woman is around), should be in, as more reliable than the "purported" ā€“ unproven (likely even wrong), long term effects of say "addiction". comp.arch (talk) 08:47, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
Imho, with so many outdated and/or problematic sources, the articles on effects of pornography, pornography addiction and sexual addiction could be deleted or reduced to stubs. But WP:VPACT says otherwise. Tgeorgescu (talk) 01:54, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
We don't delete clearly WP:Notable topics without a very strong reason for doing so. Research on the effects of pornography, pornography addiction and sexual addiction are not very active fields. This is where WP:MEDDATE comes in; by that, I mean where it states, "These instructions are appropriate for actively researched areas with many primary sources and several reviews and may need to be relaxed in areas where little progress is being made or where few reviews are published." Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 02:13, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
I have expressed my feeling about the problem and noted that there are grounds to keep the articles. It is not necessarily a contradiction between the two, e.g. both the feeling and the rule could be to the point. I agree that the reader is better off with these schematic articles than with having them deleted, but at the same time feel that the sources are rather weak to produce a solid article. Tgeorgescu (talk) 20:10, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

Not WP:SPS, but not WP:MEDRS either

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.

ā€”ā€ŠAna 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)

WP:MEDRS violation (see archive)

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)

sourcing

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)

Jytdog, thank you for replying to this request for help at Alexbrn's talk page, where I pinged you, Anthonyhcole and Yobol. Like I stated there, this topic is not a well-researched area, and WP:MEDDATE allows for some primary sourcing in this case. There is also a criminal aspect to the topic, which doesn't always require medical sources. So how much trimming do you want to do? Either way, feel free to make improvements. I won't revert you on anything. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 02:15, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
there are pretty bad problems... i really struggle with use of primary sources on an article like this where the science is very unsettled, as the dangers of cherrypicking for folks on all sides, is just too intense. Because of that, agreeing all around to using only the best kind of sources is all the more important as it is in all controversial topics (per the relevant's essay's section raise source quality). Per WP:NOT we are meant to provide the public with accepted knowledge and if what good reviews tell us, is that there is a lot we don't know, then that is what our article should say... Jytdog (talk) 02:29, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
I agree (I had already expressed my view above). Maybe teach the controversy is germane to this article. Tgeorgescu (talk) 02:33, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
Great. I'll wait for more comments before starting... Jytdog (talk) 02:56, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
I think that it's best to source all the significant aspects to scholarly books and reviews and include primary sources only if they are mentioned in a scholarly book or review. We might want to use a primary source in that case (as an adjunct) if the book or review doesn't detail some things about the research. Google Books has a number of solid book sources on the effects of pornography, some of which (meaning the aspects) are noted in this article. For example, this 2011 Applied Social Psychology: Understanding and Addressing Social and Practical Problems source, from Sage Publications, pages 148-154, is a good source for this topic. So is this 2014 Pornography and Sexual Aggression source, from Elsevier, page 139 onward. And there is some crime material in the article that doesn't need medical sources, but should have better sources supporting it. You might want to copy and paste some material here at the talk page, per WP:Preserve, for better sourcing. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 11:19, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
I struck through my line about the Pornography and Sexual Aggression source since it's a revised addition of an old source. Using old sources is not always bad, but WP:MEDDATE is clear that newer is usually better for health topics. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 11:33, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
Then again, some older studies like Zillmann's research are prevalent in the literature. Definitely not much progress being made in this field, from what I'm seeing. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 11:46, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

"not MedLine indexed, see WP:MEDRS"

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)

Well, they are not highest quality, because they are not MedLine indexed, so they may be weak sources. Tgeorgescu (talk) 16:06, 29 July 2016 (UTC)
If MedLine indexation is not that important, then I got it wrong. Anyway, some of the marked sources aren't even PubMed indexed, let alone MedLine. Tgeorgescu (talk) 16:17, 29 July 2016 (UTC)
That's what I learned at WP:RSN: for medical claims MedLine indexed is the gold standard, lack of such indexation means sub-standard. Tgeorgescu (talk) 17:36, 30 July 2016 (UTC)
Yobol has corrected me: he checked the journals for MEDLINE indexation, I had only checked the PubMed page of each article and there is no mention of "Indexed for MEDLINE" (but the journals are MEDLINE indexed). Tgeorgescu (talk) 21:10, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

Title of the article

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)

No worriesĀ : )
When dealing with category names, we need to be precise. The previous name opens the cat up to addition of subjective examples. So yes, "research" really is necessary to help make clear that the cat is about research. And after that, it seems to me that the article could use a similar name to help against the additions of WP:OR.
The article name is less of a concern though, as, unlike in category-space, in article-space "redirects are cheap"Ā : )
I'd encourage you to think about undoing your move Flyer22 Reborn, or perhaps at least thinking about a more precise name. - jc37 14:47, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
Jc37, thanks. Although I don't think that the WP:PRECISE policy applies to categories (and WP:Article title says at the top that the page is not for categories), I very much understand what you mean about Category:Effects of pornography being open to interpretation and appreciate the effort to combat that. But "open to interpretation" is the case for so many of our categories, including Category:Pornography; for example, as noted in the Erotica article, people disagree on whether erotica is pornography. I won't challenge you any further on the category aspect, though. But as for the article name, I stand by my opinion on that. The way we keep out editor interpretation is by following the sources and with due weight. Some sources are clear that some of the things are effects of pornography. Other sources are clear that some of the perceived effects are debated or are inclusive. So for the article title, "Effects" instead of "Research on the effects" is more precise. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 19:23, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

Sexual function and addiction

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)

XBiophagexĀ (talkĀ Ā· contribs), this is the edit you just made. Name your reason for removing the other material. I mean the following material: "Scientists do, however, state that excessive pornography viewing can be unhealthy if it becomes problematic for an individual due to personal or social reasons, 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 on their social life."
Why should we not include such problematic Internet pornography viewing material in the article, which is the same material reported in the article hosting problematic Internet pornography viewing material? Similar goes for removing the following: "Frequent consumers of pornography tend to experience more loneliness, and sexually inexperienced consumers of porn tend to have lower self-esteem with regard to their bodies and sexual potential as compare themselves to the actors in the pornographic material."
I have read the research, and it reports those matters. Whether we use those sources or scholarly books from Google Books, it can be supported. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 04:00, 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)

XBiophagex, considering that sexual function pertains to psychological and relationship matters in addition to biological sexual function, I didn't find the material out of place there. But I will go ahead and add it in a different way. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 04:09, 10 September 2016 (UTC)
I included the material in this way. Followup edit here, here and here.
Also, above, I separated this discussion from the Beliefs section, and titled it, since it's a different topic. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 04:27, 10 September 2016 (UTC)
Two more changes to the article section here and here. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 04:33, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

POV

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:

  • the opinion of a "Licensed Marriage & Family Therapist and Certified Clinical Partner Specialist" -- not a scientist, just a self pro-claimed expert
  • the opinion of an assistant professor in the department of sociology at the university of Oklahoma and one other person
  • A Christian website that claimed that "nearly half of all Christians in the US admit that pornography is a significant problem in their homes"

There is a lot more crap that needs to be removed or rewritten. (((The Quixotic Potato))) (talk) 00:54, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

The Quixotic, I agree with those removals. Those additions were recently added. But tags such as Template:POV and Template:Undue need to be justified on the talk page. WP:Drive-by tagging is not ideal, which is why I initially reverted your tags.
As for your statement that "Outdated references should be removed, because times have changed and so has our perception of stuff like this.", you are wrong since the 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. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 01:00, 4 February 2017 (UTC)
Thank you. I have asked Doc James to take a look at this article. User_talk:Doc_James#Hi_Doc.21 He is a smart dude, and if I ask him politely he can probably help this article. I am not sure about the progress in the literature on pornography, as a potato I am not up to date on the literature on human porn, but I'll try Google Scholar and PubMed. (((The Quixotic Potato))) (talk) 01:03, 4 February 2017 (UTC)
And don't worry, of course I totally understand why you initially reverted the tags I placed. Especially with an article like this! (((The Quixotic Potato))) (talk) 01:07, 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)

The Quixotic, see Talk:Research on the effects of pornography/Archive 1#WP:MED, studies and accuracy, and the #About revert on sperm competition and #sourcing sections above. From those sections, you can see that WP:Med has already been contacted about this article by me. In fact, more than once. With the exception of myself and Jytdog, they are not too interested in this article. Doc James was already aware of this article. From the sourcing section, you can also see my comments on the literature and me pointing to the fact that WP:MEDDATE makes exceptions for "up to date" sourcing and primary sourcing in a case like this. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 01:15, 4 February 2017 (UTC)
Thank you, I was wondering if I should ask Jytdog and now you've encouraged me. User_talk:Jytdog#Effects_of_pornography Together we can improve this article. I will try to find some time to read the talkpage and the archives, but that will probably take a while. Thanks for the links. (((The Quixotic Potato))) (talk) 01:19, 4 February 2017 (UTC)
No problem. I still feel that you have overtagged the article. Explain how those tags apply to the current state of the article. You yourself acknowledged that you are not familiar with the pornography literature. Are you expecting a lot of positive things to be stated about pornography? Most of the literature on its effects is not positive. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 01:22, 4 February 2017 (UTC)
Those tags are big and ugly, and (in some contexts) overly dramatic. I have combined them using {{multiple issues}}. I am a potato, I am not claiming to be an expert on anything. I seem to have fixed quite a few problems in a short time, but I wouldn't be surprised if I can find more. I'll take a look (sorry for being slow, I had to make tea). On my userpage you'll find a userbox that says: "This user knows that he knows nothing". (((The Quixotic Potato))) (talk) 01:25, 4 February 2017 (UTC)
I changed the archive link above. I meant Talk:Research on the effects of pornography/Archive 1#WP:MED, studies and accuracy, not Talk:Research on the effects of pornography/Archive 1#WP:MEDRS. When it comes to sourcing this article, I stand by what I stated in the #sourcing section above. Please keep in mind what I stated in that section. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 01:36, 4 February 2017 (UTC)
And for what I meant by stating "Most of the literature on its effects is not positive", see, for example, this 2005 Applied Social Psychology: Understanding and Addressing Social and Practical Problems source, from Sage Publications, page 164, which states, "Like the research on TV violence, the research on pornography focuses on the negative effects of a specific genre of media programming." The source is WP:MEDRS-compliant and addresses the literature on the effects of pornography. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 01:46, 4 February 2017 (UTC)
Interesting stuff. It will take a while for me to read all that and respond properly, hope you don't mind. In general I can state that you should feel free to revert me if you disagree with an edit I make on this article, but please explain your reasoning on the talkpage or in an editsummary because I am a curious potato. Jytdog and Doc James know a lot more about this kinda stuff than I do, and they both agreed to help, so I am hopeful that we can improve the article together. I'll try to find decent sources, but of course typing "pornography" into Google doesn't give me the results I am looking for. All potatoes are decent BS-detectors, but we do not have any medical training or expertise. (((The Quixotic Potato))) (talk) 01:58, 4 February 2017 (UTC)
Taking your time is fine. After all, I've had years to significantly fix up this article (in the way I've done for other sexual topics), but I never did, mainly because of the POV-pushing on both sides and because I had articles that I was passionate about to focus on. I also became lazier around 2013 or 2014 when it came to fixing up articles. Wikipedia burnout and all. As for Google, use Google Books. On there, you will find that a lot of the content in this article can be supported by WP:Secondary and/or tertiary sources. With edits to improve this article, the only thing I worry about is hasty cutting. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 02:10, 4 February 2017 (UTC)
I understand. BTW, if those tags at the top annoy you (I know from experience they can be annoying) then feel free to remove them (I hope combining them with the {{multiple issues}} template helped a bit, it makes them a lot smaller and less in-your-face). Of course I dived right in to make some quick edits that seemed the most important to me, but I am willing to spend some time reading the talkpage, archive and (some of the) sources. (((The Quixotic Potato))) (talk) 02:15, 4 February 2017 (UTC)
I won't remove the tags for now. Also, when it comes to the "citation needed" tag you added for "can impact sexual function," I had removed it because the Sexual function and addiction section covers that aspect. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 02:26, 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)

Per the #Sourcing and reorganizing this article section below, I will get around to fixing up/expanding the article. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 03:29, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

Proposal

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)

replying...
The Kuhn article 27503448 says: "In the present review, we will summarize the neurobiological evidence that has accumulated on hypersexuality as well as on sexual arousal in general and excessive pornography consumption in particular."
The Kraus "should?" article (PMIDĀ 26893127) says: "Centrally, should CSB (NB: "CSB" = "compulsive sexual behavior") (including excessive casual sex, viewing of pornography and/or masturbation) be considered a diagnosable disorder and, if so, should it be classified as a behavioral addiction?"
It is difficult to see how these reviews are not relevant to an article that discusses effects of pornography. The WP article does need more clear discussion of many things: "dosing" as it were - at what dose porn may be harmful -- as well as whether it is "addictive" itself, whether it may be one one form of CBB among others, etc. I don't think this article is "POV" as much as just not very well put together. But I see no reason why this article should only be focused solely on casual consumers... Jytdog (talk) 17:50, 4 February 2017 (UTC)
I agree, Jytdog. See below for more commentary. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 19:12, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

Sourcing and reorganizing this article

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)

What do you mean by "positive"? As far as I know, there is no hard evidence of nefarious effects for the usual pornography consumer and there is no evidence that increased pornography consumption in our societies has increased the rate of sexual crimes. Even speaking of child porn, the experience of the Czech Republic has shown that its decriminalization reduces actual child abuse. Of course the child pornography produces victims, but we're speaking statistics here. Tgeorgescu (talk) 03:45, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
I mean what I stated above and on SlimVirgin's talk page; in the #POV section above, I specifically stated that most of the literature on the effects of pornography is not positive. I then pointed to this 2005 Applied Social Psychology: Understanding and Addressing Social and Practical Problems source, from Sage Publications, page 164, which states, "Like the research on TV violence, the research on pornography focuses on the negative effects of a specific genre of media programming." I noted that the source is WP:MEDRS-compliant and addresses the literature on the effects of pornography. If anyone thoroughly looks at the research on the effects of pornography, they should be able to see that it mostly pertains to the perceived negatives of pornography, not to perceived positives. And, as noted on SlimVirgin's talk page, that is one of the main reasons I have not wanted to work on this article. The last thing I need are male editors getting upset with me and accusing me of being anti-porn for reporting on the literature accurately and with WP:Due weight.
As for child pornography reducing child abuse, that is a flawed argument, as made clear at the Relationship between child pornography and child sexual abuse article. And it cannot be called a positive thing either way, since, as you noted, it still involves the sexual abuse of children (unless it is simulated child pornography). I also debated that matter on the article's talk page. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 04:09, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
The article does not make that clear. What it makes clear is that there is a notable view that more Comstockery produces more harm for more children. Tgeorgescu (talk) 04:20, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
If you are referring to the aforementioned Wikipedia article, that article makes it clear that arguing that child pornography reduces child sexual abuse is debatable, and for valid reasons. There is a section specifically about increasing criminal intent and one about reducing criminal intent. And even in the one about reducing criminal intent, the author emphasizes simulated child pornography, which is not the same thing as sexually abusing an actual child. Being opposed to child pornography is not about comstockery; it is about being opposed to children being sexually abused. You will notice that there is not much positivity in the Child pornography article either. An editor would be hard-pressed to find legitimate sources stating that child pornography is a good thing.
But as for this article, I will be adhering to the WP:Due weight policy and any objections would need be based on our guidelines or policies. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 04:48, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
Coming back to your original message, I am not opposed to studies discussing the negative side of pornography, be it for the reason that these studies could have concluded that there is little evidence for nefarious effects for the pornography consumer. So the accent lies not upon investigating negative aspects, but upon evidence. Tgeorgescu (talk) 05:01, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
Sources like the one I noted above are about investigating the perceived negatives. With the exception of child pornography, there is little to indicate that pornography is inherently a bad thing. The literature largely discusses views on negative perceptions of the effects, though, and this includes men and women's views. So in a "Society and culture" section, for example, I would attempt to include views from men and women who counter negative perceptions of the effects of pornography. The section would ideally include arguments for and against. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 05:16, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

Revert on see also link

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 photoā€”it is not ā€œevidence.ā€

ā€”ā€ŠKarl W. Giberson, My Debate With an ā€˜Intelligent Designā€™ 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)

Association: Correlation does not imply causation

I have linked to Correlation does not imply causation, because many articles claim association, not causality. Tgeorgescu (talk) 16:38, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

Changed. I also changed the heading of this discussion section with ": Correlation does not imply causation" so that it is clearer as to what the section is about and is easier to find once archived. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 20:56, 10 January 2016 (UTC)
Agree. E.g. research shows that people having a low salt consumption have more heart problems. Guess why? Tgeorgescu (talk) 16:32, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

Beliefs

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. ā€”Ā Preceding unsigned comment added by XBiophagex (talk ā€¢ 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)

Well, for the most part I find that it was a good idea. However, the claim "pornography is a cause of rape" and the lack of evidence for it are notable for reasons of social history, so these would deserve at least a mention. Tgeorgescu (talk) 22:50, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
XBiophagexĀ (talkĀ Ā· contribs), I reverted your removal of the Beliefs section, because, like I noted in the #sourcing discussion above, "Zillmann's research [is] prevalent in the literature. Definitely not much progress being made in this field, from what I'm seeing." His research is commonly cited when talking about the effects of pornography. Many researchers have commented on/debated his findings and thoughts, which means that it would be a huge oversight to not include that information. As seen at WP:MEDMOS#Sections, it is common for medical and psychological articles to include historical and societal beliefs. Such beliefs certainly belong in this article. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 03:03, 10 September 2016 (UTC)
Also note that, as made clear in the #"not MedLine indexed, see WP:MEDRS" discussion above, not all of the tags for sources in the article were correct. The "unreliable medical source?" tag is a question, not a statement of fact. It's to urge editors and/or readers to check on whether or not the source meets WP:MEDRS standards. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 03:09, 10 September 2016 (UTC)
Flyer22 Reborn Please stop reverting the "Beliefs" section title. While I don't particularly have an issue with the content, in no way does it cover "beliefs" which imply that content should be about moral beliefs or opinions not supported (or supportable) by research. At least one other users deleted this section because it was unclear how "beliefs" fit into the rest of the article and another supported this edit (besides myself). I'm going to change the title again.This can be considered a suggestion - I don't particularly care if you change it if you have a title you feel is better - so long as it isn't "beliefs" (though I'm still not quite sure how it relates to the rest of the topic and would suggest that some thought be given on how to give the section some direction and focus) ā€”Ā Preceding unsigned comment added by LeeDavid1 (talk ā€¢ contribs) 04:41, 2 August 2017 (UTC)
LeeDavid1, I ask you to stop reverting as well. The section is, in fact, mostly about beliefs. The "Issues with research" section is about strong opinions regarding pornography. And the "Zillmann's research" section is about his beliefs -- his opinions -- and the opinions and speculations of others. "Beliefs" is more accurate than your "History of research on the effects of pornography" title. Different parts of the article equate to history on the matter. Also see MOS:HEAD; there is no need to repeat the title of the article in a heading unless necessary; so "History of research on the effects of pornography" would simply be "History." But I do not think that "History" is the best term for that section. I've changed the title to "Methodology and hypotheses" for now; this wording (just like "beliefs") is supported by (used in) the section. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 00:10, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

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: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.ā€”InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:35, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

Addictions

@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.

ā€”ā€ŠDSM-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): 183ā€“205. doi:10.1111/jcom.12201. ISSNĀ 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 degreesā€”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:

  • the paper is indexed neither by PubMed nor by MEDLINE, this creates a problem in respect to WP:MEDRS (the claim "pornography increases sexual aggression" pertains to MEDRS);
  • in the three years since it has been published, the paper has been cited in only one other paper independent of its authors, this creates serious doubts about its scientific value;
  • the claim that there would ā€œweight of evidenceā€ that porn increases sexual aggression fails WP:EXTRAORDINARY, which requires us multiple, independent and very strong WP:MEDRS sources in order to overturn long-standing WP:RS/AC (the paper seems to acknowledge that the ā€œconsensus among scholarsā€ is contrary to its own findings).

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)

Rape statistics

@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)

Rape/sexual assault statistics (total number, i.e. not per 1000 inhabitants).

The above is a graph of the total number, i.e. not per 1000 inhabitants. Tgeorgescu (talk) 22:04, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

Why is rape so strongly being expiated as an effect of pornography? Why this data? Why not number of people in monogamous relationships? Why not data about the erotica aimed at a female audience increasing? Why not divorce rates increasing due to aldultery. All these have been documented as having links to the increase in the availability of free pornography - whether positive or negative. Why focus on rape? ā€”Ā Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.128.17.94 (talk) 22:05, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
For the mere reason that we weren't discussing such subject. Divorce is a free choice of responsible adults in the Western world. Here being an adult entails the legal right to watch porn and the legal right to divorce from your spouse. We're not here to babysit responsible adults. Wikipedia isn't pastoral care, see WP:NOTTHEOCRACY. Here the theologies of various Christian churches are mere opinions, like the opinions of any other (ir)religious group. Also, while modus tollens is valid reasoning, post hoc ergo propter hoc isn't. I have read an article in Nature which compared divorce rate with thermal agitation: lower divorce rate compares to lower temperature. So, it seems quite odd to blame porn only, when the whole shift in Occidental culture, welfare and human rights is what produces a higher rate of divorce. Tgeorgescu (talk) 17:07, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

Deleting last sentence of opening summary

No source, purely opinion, not necessary for balanced viewpoint. 71.188.51.163 (talk) 13:31, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

BBC citation? Not reliable

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." ā€”Ā Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:120B:C3DF:B130:A8A3:37EE:C709:5DC0 (talk) 20:40, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

It's Miranda Horvath's opinion, which can be taken for what it is. Sometimes it is difficult to know what Malamuth learned from his own research, if we ignore his opinions, as reported in the press. If you read his peer-reviewed papers you might get the impression that he is anti-porn, but he isn't. Tgeorgescu (talk) 05:16, 7 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 making a medical claim, so it does not have to pass WP:MEDRS. It is simply the opinion of those researchers. I mentioned Malamuth because his view is cited from popular media. Tgeorgescu (talk) 11:42, 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)

Context is everything. If you read Malamuth's papers, he found that porn increases violence. If you read what he himself thinks, it is that porn increases violence in fringe lunatics, having the opposite effect for the rest of us. Why they do not change crime statistics? Because they aren't that many. If one studies the lunatic fringe, he gets conclusion that apply to the lunatic fringe. So, yes, in his peer-reviewed papers it is the lunatic fringe which accounts for his significant findings. In this context, "generalizable findings" does not mean that these apply to most of us, these apply to a population which includes fringe lunatics. WP:MEDRS applies only to medical claims (e.g. "porn is healthy"). It does not apply to Horvath's opinion that most porn research is bunk. E.g. she is not used for claiming that porn is healthy, that has to be WP:CITED to WP:MEDRS WP:SOURCES. If you want a WP:PAG reason for citing her: WP:PARITY, since WP:FRINGE applies to bunk research. If you want another, it's WP:RS/AC (she does not tell what the academic consensus is, she tells us what it isn't). Tgeorgescu (talk) 03:45, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

The entire Effects of Pornography page should be revised. It has many problems; will explain below.

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)

Edit5001, regarding this, since Zillman's research is commonly discussed within the literature on this topic, as seen by the responses to it, which were not all supported by dead links, we should retain some material on Zillman's research. It is easy to find academic sources on Google Books referring to Zillman's research. Furthermore, per WP:Dead links, we shouldn't remove material simply because the links have gone dead. Note, though, that citing a book without citing a URL does not equate to "dead link." And with regard to accessing the sources, see WP:PAYWALL, which states, "Some reliable sources may not be easily accessible. For example, an online source may require payment, and a print-only source may be available only in university libraries. Rare historical sources may even be available only in special museum collections and archives. Do not reject reliable sources just because they are difficult or costly to access. If you have trouble accessing a source, others may be able to do so on your behalf (see WikiProject Resource Exchange)."
Regarding this and this, you need to refrain from adding primary sources/single study material to the article. This is per WP:MEDRS and WP:SCHOLARSHIP, but especially per WP:MEDRS. Primary sources should be avoided. As for existing primary sources in the article, that existing poor sources and/or content is in the article does not mean that it is okay to add more poor sources and/or poor content. Per WP:Preserve, we should try to preserve material that is supported by primary sources. By this, I mean looking for secondary and/or tertiary sources to support the material and to then replace the primary sources with those.
This topic is not just a medical topic. It is a societal topic as well. So societal aspects do not need to be about science. That type of material is about how pornography socially effects people. And it will include opinions. So that type of material does not need WP:MEDRS-compliant sources. In relation to societal views, we can also cover early/historical views. As seen at WP:MEDSECTIONS, we commonly include "Society and culture" and "History" sections in articles like these.
As for balancing, we do not artificially balance. We give most of our weight to what the literature usually or mostly states. This is per WP:Due. Also see WP:False balance.
On a side note, I prefer not to be WP:Pinged to this talk page since this article/talk page is on my watchlist. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 00:02, 13 October 2019 (UTC) Updated post. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 00:31, 13 October 2019 (UTC)
No, the chart is not misleading. The old feminist argument was "porn increases rape". The chart debunks this argument (modus tollens). Tgeorgescu (talk) 00:27, 13 October 2019 (UTC)
In regards to Zillman - agreed, including some of his research is fine if we can get proper links to it. I don't think it should be in its own section though, there are other areas of the article where it can be included (or perhaps a new section devoted to the effects pornography has on the attitudes of consumers). I maintain that a non-scientist activist feminist's opinion isn't worthy of inclusion in regards to it, though.
My issue with the book source was that there was no page/paragraph listed from an over 1,000 page document. Meaning to verify the information one has to buy then comb through the book for the information. It would be a lot better for the page if it could be more clear where in the book that information is. I get your point as well, though.
Regarding the primary/secondary source issue on the medical topics - understood, I believe there are secondary and tertiary sources for the information in the links I added and will work to add them.
In terms of balancing - as this article previously stood there were simply mountains of research left out, and the research was presented in a poor way. Even as it stands, I've really only scratched the surface of more valuable and relevant content that could be added to this article. I again emphasize that many of the previous sources were mainly from the 70s and 80s, long before internet porn existed. That's something that must be factored in to how all of this information is presented. The more recent (and relevant) research that can be put into this article regarding both the societal and medical impacts of porn, the better.
For the rape chart - there are several issues, like I mentioned before, that warrant it not being in the article. Firstly, the rape rate falling at the same time porn became more widespread in the US does not necessarily disprove the argument that pornography is a contributing factor to rape. What it might simply show is that pornography was not enough in the United States to offset other factors that were already causing rape to drop. This idea is backed by the fact that many different researchers give different hypotheses on what drove the drop in violent crime in the 70s and 80s in the US. Even more importantly to the point, this drop in rape was not uniform across all countries where porn became more widespread. Thus we shouldn't present a chart that makes it seem like porn was causing a drop in rape rates. It should be presented in text among the other research. Edit5001 (talk) 06:42, 13 October 2019 (UTC)
The mantra is "correlation does not imply causation" ā€” I fully endorse it. What you fail to notice is that there is a contradiction between your claim of recent overwhelming mass availability of porn and decrease in rapes (seen the assumption that porn encourages rapes). While it does not prove causation, it does falsify causation. Also, Malamuth speaking his own mind to the press after having thoroughly researched the matter did not claim that "porn increases violence in most people" but rather something like "porn increases violence in the lunatic fringe".
Also the dilemma isn't either porn addiction or no real symptoms. The dilemma is either porn addiction or compulsion/impulse control disorder. And the consensus seems to be that porn-OCD is extremely infrequent. What is more frequent are delusions like "porn made me bald/psychotic", and there is no shortage of ranting people on the internet. Tgeorgescu (talk) 18:58, 13 October 2019 (UTC)
This is how the "Zillmann's research" section was before your edit. This is how the References section was before your edit. Not a lot of 1970s and 1980s references. Given the prominence of Zillmann, I do think there should be a Zillmann section in the article. Gail Dines's commentary or other commentary from her can go into a "Society and culture" section, which we should create. Feminists have opinions about social effects, just like others. But in the case of the Dines piece you removed, it was presented as her summarizing Zillmann's research. If her summary is inaccurate or is more so her opinion, we can leave that out. It shouldn't just be the big quote it was anyway, if we are include any commentary from her on Zillmann's work. When it comes to how you are distinguishing the effects on Internet pornography vs. other kinds of pornography, we need WP:MEDRS-compliant sources for that. And what pornography are you distinguishing? Magazine pornography vs. Internet pornography? Video pornography (of a certain era or not) to Internet pornography? All forms of pornography vs. Internet pornography? Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 00:38, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

Addiction section only mentions neruological markers and not biological ones

Someone should include that for npov. it seems to be include in this https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pornography_addiction#Diagnostic_status Wikipedia article ā€”Ā Preceding unsigned comment added by Mehdi mohammed mahmoud (talk ā€¢ contribs) 00:44, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

How are the neurological aspects not biological? What do you mean by "biological"? Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 03:02, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
I think he might mean this material:
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]
Seems worthwhile to copy over with a grammar tweak on the 'missing biomarker' bit. Crossroads -talk- 03:16, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

JytDog why did you rollback my edits?

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)

Wikipedia has strict guidelines for content, and for medical content these are very strict. You are invited to read WP:MEDRS and apply it in all your medical edits inside Wikipedia. Disobeying it is not allowed, that's why you got reverted. E.g., we are not interested in primary medical sources, we want reviews. Gary Wilson is neither scientist nor scholar, so he should not be quoted at all. See Talk:Masturbation/Archive_ 10#The bald claim that NO causal harm is known from masturbation is false. This is an important error on a "top importance" page on sexuality. Also, these topics are haunted by WP:SPAs having a problem with WP:ADVOCACY, I hope you're not one of them. The gist of WP:MEDRS is that we render as fact what pertains to medical orthodoxy, and we simply state that disputed, undecided issues are disputed and undecided. Tgeorgescu (talk) 23:48, 26 April 2016 (UTC)
On medical matters, Wikipedia reflects the view of the medical establishment. You want Wikipedia to state some medical fact? Wait until the medical establishment will consensually state this fact, and then Wikipedia will write it in big shinny letters. This could also mean that you would have to wait forever, if the medical establishment does not reach a consensus, or if it reaches a consensus contrary to your view. Tgeorgescu (talk) 15:40, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
I agree pretty much with Tgeorgescu says. First, we do rely on really high quality sources, as described in WP:MEDRS. We give WP:WEIGHT (space in articles) to ideas based in the weight given to them in these high quality sources (not what you or me or anyone else personally thinks is important, but what the high quality sources say is important). If there is some discussion of this in those kinds of sources, we can talk about it here, but only in appropriate proportion. You are going to have a very hard time getting stuff into Wikipedia that isn't discuss in high quality sources at all. Jytdog (talk) 19:52, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
I can understand why Psychology Today would not be used, there were a few legitimate source, say, under the Heterosexual adult relationships section and I don't see why they were removed. Liz Read! Talk! 22:09, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
here is the dif that added content in three spots; I reproduce the added content below:
first spot:

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.

second spot:

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).

third spot:

At least three studies have found evidence that: porn-free relationships are stronger, with a lower rate of infidelity; watching porn diminishes relationship commitment; and the fantasy alternative leads to real-world cheating. [4][5][6][7][8]

References

  1. ^ Gary Wilson. TedX Glasgow. The Great Porn Experiment
  2. ^ https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/tech-support/201407/what-porn-does-intimacy
  3. ^ https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/tech-support/201407/what-porn-does-intimacy
  4. ^ Olmstead,Spenser B., Sesen N Negash, Kay Pasley, and Frank D. Fincham, ā€œEmerging Adultsā€™ Expectations for Pornography Use in the Context of Future Committed Relationships: A Qualitative Study,ā€ Archives of Sexual Behavior (2013), 42, 625-635.
  5. ^ Kimmel, Michael. Guyland: The Perilous World Where Boys Become Men. New York: HarperCollins Publishers, 2008.
  6. ^ Maddox, Amanda, Galena K, Rhoades, and Howard J.Markman,ā€ Viewing Sexually-Explicit Materials Alone and Together: Associations with Relationship Quality,ā€ Archives of Sexual Behavior (April 2011), 40, no. 2, 441-448.
  7. ^ Lambert, Nathaniel M. and Sesen Negash, Tyler F.Stillman, Spencer B. Olmstead, and Frank M. Fincham, ā€œA Love That Doesnā€™t Last: Pornography Consumption and Weakened Commitment to Oneā€™s Romantic Partner,ā€ Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology (2012), vol.31, no.4, 410-438.
  8. ^ Gwinn, Andrea Mariea, Nathaniel M. Lambert, Frank D. Fincham, and Jon K,Maner, ā€œPornography, Relationship Alternatives, and Intimate Extradyadic Behavior,ā€ Social Psychological and Personality Science, (2013), vol.4, no. 6, 699-704.
I do acknowledge that there is a bunch of really badly-sourced content in this article now and it needs a lot of work. But Liz, which of those sources are MEDRS-compliant? ā€”Ā Preceding unsigned comment added by Jytdog (talk ā€¢ contribs) 22:17, 1 May 2016ā€Ž (UTC)
There is room to debate the nuances of how good a MEDRS source is, but basically, start with a MEDLINE-indexed journal, look for peer-reviewed studies and preferably ones that are in a "sweet spot" of not too old, but old enough that if they've been challenged, the results of such challenges are also published, usually stuff that has come out in the last 5 years is ideal, but there are always exceptions. It is a good idea to look at meta-analysis works in particular (where a study reviews a lot of other studies and summarizes the state of the science in that area). This particular topic has been studied quite a bit, so you should be able to find plenty of material. That said, there is a huge problem on wikipedia with systemic bias as well as a fair dose of garden variety sexism and misogyny, so don't be surprised if you get pushback. There are probably more articles in WP on porn stars than women poets. That said, there are some good users here on this article and Liz is one of them. Montanabw(talk) 04:15, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
We're not prejudiced against rendering as fact what is taught as fact in most US medical schools. We're prejudiced against rendering as fact what cannot be taught as fact in most US medical schools. That's the difference. Tgeorgescu (talk) 18:04, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
By that standard, we would have no articles on abortion, which is often not taught at many medical schools. Your analogy fails (also, the CHOPS test incorporates UK schools as well...) Montanabw(talk) 19:08, 16 May 2016 (UTC)
The hard facts about abortion are not in question (I do not mean its moral status), so even if people have widely different views on abortion, its existence as a real fact is not problematic for the medical sciences. Different professors of medicine will pretty much agree on the definition of abortion, regardless of whether they consider it permissible or impermissible. On the contrary, there is no agreement in medical sciences or psychology about the effects of pornography; no medical consensus has been reached upon their reality or upon their definition (contents). That's what I meant: we have provisional, hotly debated research which has not established hard facts about how professors of medicine should define the effects of pornography. Gary Wilson is an advocate speaking for an internet pressure group which thinks that research should prove that pornography is harmful. Also, there are various conservative and evangelical organizations which have produced tons of advocacy against pornography because they are theologically biased against it and use the idiom of cocaine addiction because the old fire and brimstone story no longer scares people from consuming pornography. Personally, I subscribe to Krueger's view: while a small minority could become compulsive users of pornography, the vast majority will further consume pornography with no nefarious side effects whatsoever. Tgeorgescu (talk) 21:45, 16 May 2016 (UTC)
Upon "abortion is murder" there can be no agreement, but both sides to the debate will agree upon what counts as abortion. Tgeorgescu (talk) 23:24, 16 May 2016 (UTC)
The medical consensus about masturbation is that it is normal, safe and healthy. Since most men use porn most of the time while masturbating, the common wisdom in the academy seems to be that pornography is normal, safe and healthy (for most men, most of the time). Therefore claims to the contrary have to fulfill WP:EXTRAORDINARY. I willingly admitted above that some men develop compulsive use of pornography, the same way as other men develop compulsive use of food or drinks. But it is not serious to claim that eating and drinking would be in themselves unhealthy, so we should not claim that pornography is in itself unhealthy. Tgeorgescu (talk) 20:35, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
According to [10], about 80% of the studied male German and Polish students use pornography several times a month or more frequently. I am now looking for a MedLine indexed source. Tgeorgescu (talk) 21:15, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
Pure Desire Ministries, "Porn Usage in Evangelical Churches" (2009): "survey which reveals 68 percent of Christian men and 50 percent of pastors watch pornography regularly", quote from Cu-Unjieng, Terry, Christianity Today. Sep2014, Vol. 58 Issue 7, p72-72. 1p. Tgeorgescu (talk) 21:21, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
You get the idea: it's the same modus tollens which led to the demise of the myth "masturbation makes you blind/insane". Tgeorgescu (talk) 21:35, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
In 2010, the percentage of adult U.S. males who said they watched at least one pornographic film in the past year in the General Social Survey was 36%, a slight increase since 1973; source: MedLine indexed J Sex Res. 2013;50(1):60-71. doi: 10.1080/00224499.2011.628132. Epub 2011 Nov 29. "U.S. males and pornography, 1973-2010: consumption, predictors, correlates." Wright PJ. Tgeorgescu (talk) 23:19, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
I have explored myself 2014 GSS data at [11]. Of all valid male responses, 31.12% admit to having seen at least a porn film in the past year. But of all male responses, 40.6% are "not applicable". Tgeorgescu (talk) 00:08, 18 May 2016 (UTC)
Give the prevalence of prurient interest and idle curiosity, and the essentially universal availability of Internet access, I find it very difficult to believe that only about 1/3 of American men have "seen a porn film", even only once, in that period. If I was asked to guess a prior probability before receiving any evidence, I'd have said 70-80%. However, I'd also expect most of them not to be particularly keen to tell others about it. Does "not applicable" mean "won't say/no response" in this context? -- The Anome (talk) 10:33, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
"Not applicable" means that they weren't even asked the question. Tgeorgescu (talk) 20:22, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

"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)

SCIRS

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)

Youth

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 arenā€™t any". tgeorgescu (talk) 15:40, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

The Effects of pornography on relationships spin-off article

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
The result of this discussion was merge Effects of pornography on relationships into Effects of pornography. --Xurizuri (talk) 05:16, 24 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)

Hello, and thank you for the feedback. While I feel that the existing article on the effects of pornography does a phenomenal job covering the more general effects, I perceived a gap specifically addressing the effects on romantic and intimate relationships. I initially debated adding content to this page, but ultimately decided that there was enough information to warrant creating a page focusing on intimacy, not as a spin-off, but as a supplemental resource. I will keep your suggestions in mind as I continue to work on the page and make improvements. Claire97Reid (talk) 06:51, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
Claire97Reid, I think a merge should happen per what I stated above. Things you touched on in the spin-off article are things that should be addressed in this article, and some are things that I would have addressed in this article. The article you created is about both effects on relationships and individual effects. I'm not looking to have the article merged yet. It first needs more cleanup. Some other things you should keep in mind on this topic are WP:SCHOLARSHIP, WP:MEDRS and WP:Due weight. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 07:02, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
I will keep that in mind as I continue to edit my page. Thank you for your input. Claire97Reid (talk) 07:10, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
I also think a merge should occur. Please also keep in mind that we should focus on using WP:Secondary sources, which is touched on in the links above. Crossroads -talk- 19:54, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
I agree with the merge idea and will complete the procedural step of adding notifications to each page. The newer article by Claire97Reid includes a lot of personal reflections and original research that are not appropriate for a Wikipedia article anyway. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 15:36, 24 December 2020 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Ā Ā checkYĀ Merger complete. --Xurizuri (talk) 07:02, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

Causality unknown

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)

I don't interpret that as her meaning. She limited herself to "correlational studies". So there could be studies that determine causality outside of the group she was referring to.
After all, if science could never indicate causality, we would've never found out that smoking cigarettes can cause lung cancer, that drinking too much alcohol can cause brain damage, or thousands of other similar things. While correlation does not automatically equal causation, it certainly has the possibility of being causation. DayTime99 (talk) 02:45, 28 November 2021 (UTC)
What I learned in my sociology study is that theories postulate causality and empirical studies are ways to seek to falsify such theories. So, no, empirical studies cannot show causality, that's up to theories. tgeorgescu (talk) 02:47, 28 November 2021 (UTC)
Genuine question; how do you believe we know that smoking cigarettes increases chances of lung cancer? The tobacco industry fought very long and very hard saying that correlation does not equal causation in order to defend their products. DayTime99 (talk) 02:53, 28 November 2021 (UTC)
First, my own opinion is irrelevant. As Jeppiz stated, Wikipedia builds on sources, not opinions. I'm afraid that's not what the tobacco industry fought for: correlation does not equal causation is 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.
As Franklin Veaux stated on Quora, For example, death by drowning strongly correlates with sales of ice cream sandwiches. tgeorgescu (talk) 03:04, 28 November 2021 (UTC)
Well it's certainly a good thing that researchers didn't dismiss the idea that tobacco use could be increasing chances of lung cancer simply because correlation doesn't always equal causation. Noone should make that mistake. DayTime99 (talk) 03:07, 28 November 2021 (UTC)
I am not acquainted with how causality has been shown from tobacco use to lung cancer. I'll simply leave it at that simply showing correlation would not have been enough. So scientists went the extra mile and they have shown causality, besides correlation. tgeorgescu (talk) 03:11, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

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)

Help needed

I need some help to identify if Iā€™m a person who consumes pornography excessively or not? 76.64.125.243 (talk) 13:53, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

Sorry, Wikipedia does not impart medical advice. Consult with a licensed psychiatrist. tgeorgescu (talk) 16:55, 11 February 2022 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Effects_of_pornography/Archive_1&oldid=1150755201"