Talk:Pornography addiction/Archive 2

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

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

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

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

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

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

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

And yet, that did not happen."

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

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

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

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

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

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

Ok, then both videos have to be deleted. It would be a violation of

WP:NPOV to keep only one of them. Tgeorgescu (talk

) 16:37, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Quotes from Krueger rendered by the same source are either all reliable or all unreliable. We should not

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

That paper is cited by

WP:MEDRS. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢

) 15:04, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

On a related note, it's probably worth adding content from

PMID 27114191 (temporarily available here) to the article since it's a recent systematic review. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢

) 15:12, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

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

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

I have reverted a source from a

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

Evidence for being predatory:

with low publishing fees paid by authors or their institutions.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

In order to assure you that I'm not here to

game the system, I have opened a discussion at Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Vanity_press_or_MEDRS-compliant_source?. Tgeorgescu (talk

) 09:10, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

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

Tgeorgescu is gaming the system on porn related Wiki pages

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

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

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

1) Parting Company with Jeffrey Beall

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

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

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

3) Beyond Beall’s List

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Beall has removed the company from his predators list, but other reasons mentioned at

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

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

This is hardly an original thought, so there should be

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

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

Well,

pictophilia redirects to this article. Older sources considered it a paraphilia. Tgeorgescu (talk

) 15:11, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

I've removed the pictophilia entry from {{

WP:RFD since this article is not an appropriate target for that redirect. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢

) 15:16, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

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

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