This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Contents
Circles of the religious right
According to Ellen Laan[1] the findings about pornography addiction arise from the claims made by religious right circles and such claims are unusual among sexologists. Tgeorgescu (talk) 01:34, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
Here is her CV.[2] Tgeorgescu (talk) 01:37, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
References
- ^ van der Veen, Casper (17 Aug 2016). "Dat zei de Britse seksuoloog Angela Gregory maandag tegen de BBC" [British sexologist Angela Gregory Discusses Erectile dysfunction in young people by porn on the internet] (in Dutch). NRC Handelsblad.
Nee, zegt seksuoloog Ellen Laan van het AMC in Amsterdam: „Er is geen enkel wetenschappelijk bewijs voor deze uitspraken. Zo'n therapeut zou beter moeten weten.” [(And, is it true?) No, says sexologist Ellen Laan of the AMC in Amsterdam: "There is no scientific evidence for these statements. Such a therapist should know better."]
- ^ "Prof. dr. E.T.M. Laan PhD". Academisch Medisch Centrum (AMC). Who is Who in Research.
-
-
- Good point, those shrinks who belly-ache are usually churchgoers with moralist axes to grind. Gee, if only the editors of this Wikipedia article only knew what kinds of erotica are available in Germany and Holland - over the counter in shops. Dickie birdie (talk)
-
Sex supermarkets
Sex supermarkets were first established in Europe during the 1970s. Candid discussions about sexual matters on European television chat shows are without parallel in the English-speaking world. For example, following the accidental death of Conservative MP Stephen Milligan, those who practiced BDSM sexuality were invited to participate in television discussions on Milligan's hanging and accidental death.
Therefore, the existence of the subject matter of "Pornography addiction" is a cultural phenomenon that belongs largely to the English-speaking world. Nobody in Europe gives a damn about what people do that does not constitute criminal activity.
During the 1990s German satellite showed a documentary about a German priest who belly-ached about the existence of so-called pornography. The priest engaged in protests outside sex shops. The proprietors of the sex shop called the Police and the priest was apprehended by the German Police, led away and warned about breaching Public Order.
This difference in attitude towards erotic material in different countries and different cultures is missing from this article. Dickie birdie (talk) 07:44, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
- This article is not a WP:COATRACK for the cultural issues around pornography, there are other articles which readily discuss that. This article is simply about the claim that there would be a pornography addiction, i.e. something not covered by the definition of the obsessive-compulsive disorder. OCD about porn is very rare, but it exists. The gist of the discussion is whether OCD diagnosis is enough for porn overuse, or there should be another diagnosis using the addiction model. Tgeorgescu (talk) 20:46, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
- What Tgeorgescu has stated above is exactly right. The fact that there's a pathology/neuropsychological disorder related to pornography use is not itself an argument for the cessation of pornography use. E.g., many pharmaceuticals can induce an addiction, but these are still prescribed. Moreover, gambling, eating, and shopping are all associated with a unique form of behavioral addiction, but the potential for addiction to these stimuli is not an adequate justification for people stop eating food, spending money, or gambling responsibly. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 21:28, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
- I'm not going to bust my gut arguing with you guys, but there is no issue over Evangelism. People preach religious rubbish all their lives and that is never described as an addiction. It only applies to sex. Not to skiing in the Alps 12 hours per day, not to compulsive cookery. Only applies to sex. Nobody has been "damaged" by having an interest in erotica. Nobody. Dickie birdie (talk) 14:22, 26 October 2016 (UTC)
- What Tgeorgescu has stated above is exactly right. The fact that there's a pathology/neuropsychological disorder related to pornography use is not itself an argument for the cessation of pornography use. E.g., many pharmaceuticals can induce an addiction, but these are still prescribed. Moreover, gambling, eating, and shopping are all associated with a unique form of behavioral addiction, but the potential for addiction to these stimuli is not an adequate justification for people stop eating food, spending money, or gambling responsibly. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 21:28, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
-
-
-
- Try claiming that Evangelism is "not" an obsessive addiction. Dickie birdie (talk) 14:28, 26 October 2016 (UTC)
- This article needs WP:V statements regardless of whether or not pornography is truly benign. Regardless of the WP:TRUTH we need sources that say so. Sizeofint (talk) 14:53, 26 October 2016 (UTC)
- Dickie, behavioral addictions are not exclusively sex-related. A "pornography addiction" probably isn't so much a disorder of pornography use as it is a disorder of compulsive sexual activity (i.e., people who compulsively view pornography while engaging in sexual activity are probably more correctly described as sex addicts who regularly view pornography when they exhibit compulsive sexual behavior). Viewing pornographic material is not addictive in its own right, but when this is combined consistently with sexual activity, which is addictive, it can and usually will become a classically conditioned operant reinforcer for sexual behavior (e.g., masturbation). In healthy people, this phenomenon isn't really that notable since the conditioned behavioral response from viewing pornography (i.e., engaging in sexual activity) can be overridden via inhibitory control. In sex addicts who regularly view pornography, this phenomenon makes pornography act as a behavioral cue (analogous to a drug cue) that triggers compulsive sexual behavior which can not be stopped by exerting inhibitory control over that behavior.
FWIW, I'm an atheist who uses pornography and doesn't give a shit about popular culture/opinion about this topic. - As for the lead sentence, you do actually need to cite a source to support the claim that you've been adding to the article. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 17:50, 26 October 2016 (UTC)
- Try claiming that Evangelism is "not" an obsessive addiction. Dickie birdie (talk) 14:28, 26 October 2016 (UTC)
-
-
-
- This is an article written by Wikipedia editors who are Blimpish Prudes. I have been accessing erotica since 1969 and it has never "damaged me" or anyone else I know. The whole concept of the subject matter is the creation of Blimpish prudery and nothing else. Not even one case example of anyone that has been "damaged" can be produced. Certainly not in the Wikipedia article. And yet the rubbish continues to exist. Brazzers, Reality Kings, Naughty America, Evil Angel, The Score Group - here are just a few examples that represent the tip of the iceberg. From this list of Adult Erotica Websites surely you could be able to draw a list of examples to substantiate the subject matter of "pornography addiction" - but somehow I don't think you will be able to. Because again I repeat the subject matter is a tenet of prudery and nothing else. Dickie birdie (talk) 19:09, 26 October 2016 (UTC)
-
- xHamster is another example. By its own statistics this site has over 200,000 subscribers. It operates on a similar level to Facebook where users have friends and blogs. Users on the xHamster website can have thousands of friends, and each friend can have thousands of uploads. This is an example of hyperactive interest in erotica. And there are dozens more sites similar to xhamster. If accessing erotica on such a large scale is "damaging" (similar to editing Wikipedia, where certain editors spend large amounts of time working on articles) --- then surely there are masses upon masses of "damaged" people around the world. Except there is no such thing in existence. Accessing erotica is just another hobby and nothing else. It is certainly not "dangerous" and entirely harmless.
The prudery is stupid. Dickie birdie (talk) 19:16, 26 October 2016 (UTC)
-
-
- I'm a blimpish prude. LOL Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 19:17, 26 October 2016 (UTC)
- You adhere to the subject matter of this article, put your money where your mouth is, please back up your position by providing one case example. Dickie birdie (talk) 19:19, 26 October 2016 (UTC)
- This reference supports what I said above about pornography functioning as a classically conditioned operant reinforcer (i.e., a behavioral cue) for sexual behavior. That's the only definitive claim that I've made so far on this talk page. A statement about this in the article (this lead sentence cited by ref #5) is supported by that reference. The article does not explicitly state anywhere that "pornography is an addictive stimulus", which would be equivalent to the assertion that "pornography addiction" is a real/established clinical disorder. In fact, the article makes the opposite claim, i.e., that there are no established diagnostic criteria to establish "pornography addiction" as a clinical disorder. Consequently, I don't see why you're so upset about the article text. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 19:30, 26 October 2016 (UTC)
- You adhere to the subject matter of this article, put your money where your mouth is, please back up your position by providing one case example. Dickie birdie (talk) 19:19, 26 October 2016 (UTC)
- I'm a blimpish prude. LOL Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 19:17, 26 October 2016 (UTC)
-
Erotica damaging people
There is no evidence in existence to justify this claim. Nothing. It's something that belongs primarily to English-language culture. Visit other countries. Broaden your horizons. Dickie birdie (talk) 14:33, 26 October 2016 (UTC)
-
- Blimpish Prudery. The whole concept of Pornography Addiction originates from and belongs to Blimpish Prudery. I have been accessing erotica all my life since the 1960s and it has never "damaged" me or anyone else I know. You are unable to cite even one example or one person's name to back up your position. Dickie birdie (talk) 18:52, 26 October 2016 (UTC)
Blimpish Prudery of this article - summary
My edits to this article have been rejected and so I return to the initial common sense realities of life outside of Wikipedia.
The title of this article is a misnomer - It is only an opinion, POV, that adult erotica is "Pornography", that it is "obscene and disgusting". Use the words "depravity" and "corruption" as well. Except that it is not "pornographic", "depraved" and "corrupt" when people engage in penetrative and oral sex in real life. That is considered normal. Here lies the ironic fact that all negative references to so-called "pornography" represent the worst sort of hypocrisy.
Let's say that someone accesses Erotica 18 hours per day, and at the same time listens to their favourite music at the same time. Will that person be accused of engaging in "Music Addiction" --- no, that person will only de indicted of "pornography addiction". Incidentally, listening to music all day long every day is considered normal.
Adult Erotica is on the move all the time, new performers, new directors and new films are being introduced all the time. Adult Erotica is a living thing, on the move all the time where no two days are the same. Just like television programmes are on the move all the time, with new soap operas, new dramas, new game shows, new everything for people to watch. Nobody calls watching television an addiction because people want to know what's new in television. The very same thing applies the cinema and music. People do EXACTLY THE SAME THING with Adult Erotica. It's just another medium, and just as big a source of tax for the governments.
The fabric of this article is Blimpish Prudery because it subscribes to the opinion that the subject matter is "pornographic", "obscene" and "disgusting" because the visual art of showing sex is wrong and the people who access it are in the wrong over some moral reasons.
In the meantime, life goes on in contradiction to what this article is all about. This Wikipedia article remains unable to justify its central argument. Nobody in the entire history of the Human Race has ever been "damaged" by accessing Adult Erotica, whether for 4 hours per day or for 14 hours per day. Adult Erotica has always been part of Human History. From Stone Age Paintings to Greek and Roman art to sepia photography to digital modern times. Likewise, the objection to this material has always been in evidence, this Wikipedia article acting as a testimony to that fact. Dickie birdie (talk) 10:07, 28 October 2016 (UTC)
- The amount of time that you spend doing something is not a gauge that determines whether or not you have an addiction. You clearly don't understand what a behavioral addiction is based upon your comment. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 12:24, 28 October 2016 (UTC)
-
- Our article does not say that pornography addiction definitely exists, it says that some claim that it exists, while others deny it. Inside Wikipedia, you have to have WP:SOURCES in order to make valid edits. About the kind of sources needed for medical claims see WP:MEDRS. Science does not rely upon anecdotal evidence and neither does Wikipedia. If you ask me, it's the same as with food: most people eat food without problems, but some simply cannot control themselves. Same goes for pornography. Whether this means addiction or not, it is not Wikipedia editors who make the call, instead we wait for the medical orthodoxy to make the call and we simply render the mainstream medical view. Tgeorgescu (talk) 18:53, 28 October 2016 (UTC)
-
-
- I have had to blank the webpage because the article is disgusting. It has been written by people who are offended by XXX material. And it is loaded big time Dickie birdie (talk) 16:47, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
-
If you think the article is biased, point us to reliable sources that can make it more balanced. Do not blank the page, nor accuse other editors of prudery.
And in this case the article is less concerned with pornographic works and their contents, and more concerned with the effects on the addicts' lives: "difficulty in general life functioning". Dimadick (talk) 23:30, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
- He/she got indeffed. Anyway, it isn't the mainstream view that there is such a thing as pornography addiction, it isn't the mainstream view that there is no such thing as pornography addiction, so we can only cover the controversy. Tgeorgescu (talk) 00:50, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
-
-
- There is no such thing in existence as a medical condition called "pornography addiction". It is a made-up thing invented by those who are offended by Adult Erotica. No such thing exists in medicine, The Wikipedia article is propaganda, An experienced Wikipedia editor has been indefinately banned for absolutely nothing except for writing on an Editor's Talk Page and the Editor having the ability to ban him. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.132.66.44 (talk) 11:53, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
- Editing Wikipedia supposes one is able to cooperate with others and give them the benefit of doubt. No one is entitled to delete Wikipedia articles simply because he/she does not like them. The matter discussed in this article is far from settled and this is what the article says. Tgeorgescu (talk) 17:10, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
-
-
Majority opinion
The opinion of the associate professor E.T.M. Laan renders the majority view, namely that most sexologists do not believe in pornography addiction. Tgeorgescu (talk) 16:52, 26 February 2017 (UTC)