Talk:Pornography addiction

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents 1 Problems with the page/Cleanup 2 Too many religious flavours .. 3 The Self Test 4 NPOV 5 Unnamed series of studies 6 Ted Bundy 7 Evidence needed to back up statement 8 Medlina links (mostly anti-porn) 9 From a journalist... 10 Point of view that pornography addiction doesn't exist 11 Scientific model for addiction 12 Translations 13 Spam filter 14 Escalation 15 Staggering naivete 16 Well, here's a try 17 Online pornography addiction section 18 Reality check 19 Chicken or the egg? 20 Semantic problem, redux 21 That should do it for now 22 I see the Wiki Nazis are hard at work 23 No research done claim 24 Merge with Sexual addiction ? 25 Merge -- I think it should be 26 Don't fool yourself, it does harm others 27 Dobson is no expert on anything except fundamentalist opportunism 28 Hilarious!!! == 29 Merge Sexual addiction with Pornography addiction?

[edit] Problems with the page/Cleanup

Why subjects lower than "Opponents of Pornography Addiction" don't appear on the page, and in the "edit page" they do? I don't know much editing on Wikipedia and I think one of you who knows should fix this problem.

Fixed it. A </ref> was missing.

[edit] Too many religious flavours ..

The main article holds far too many religious flavours, I think we should concentrated on facts, being personally addicted (do not know for how long), as a male and trying to be factual and honest, I can state a few personal facts about why it bother me :

(1) takes much longer to have a wank with Internet than with your own mental pictures, or even with a nice woman, because : (a) pornographical web sites are made to generate and amplify addictive behaviour, so adverts and other deception slow down the whole process! (b) curiosity is terrible, as a male it seems that the next one is always going to be more interesting!

(2) perversion, I am quite doubtful about the escalation there, the only damage I could see in my case, are the following (a) tendency to choose lesbian pictures also from practical purpose two woman for only one download :-) so I caught myself having a tendency to speak in crude ways about lesbian subjects and making not so great insinuations as jokes when talking to female friends, but the whole story stop right there! No other escalation, no attraction at all for deviant sex etc.

(3) deformation of social perception : most women on these pictures look sad and not wanting to be there at all, their expression of nice feelings are faked in 95% of the cases (except when the all thing looks like some sort of yoga stretching poses generating sometimes something looking like a real laugh, by the way not very sexy either), so I guess a regular viewer would have a tendency to distort or ignore more facial expression in real life that without that sort of addiction. Note : the photographer do not seem very sensitive to the women facial expression as well!

(4) another big problem is a the tendency to have a memory reset when wanking on the web! I suppose here that wanking with your personal memories help to consolidate real life experience, you tend to think to people you like very much and reinforce memories about them, which is very important the next time you meet them, because your good memory is a sign that you care and is very well interpreted by most potentially interested women.

(5) the manipulation from porn site owner is extreme and you need many skills to escape it! Everything is done to increase your addiction and make you believe that it would be better if you pay, the most pervasive sort of manipulation seem to be done with cookies, allowing site owner to adapt the content to your own state of addiction, then at the appropriate moment to generate a withdrawal symptom making paid content the logical following step. Luckily being not loaded, able to overturn most tricks and afraid of giving any financial info to these sort of people I escaped increasing the means!

To summarise, I think online sex addiction is a problem and should be completely differentiated from off line masturbation, which is on my point of view a necessary compensation for the lonely singles, in fact so clues tells that it could help to avoid : (a) prostate cancer (b) stress (c) bad feeling resulting from any underused organ (try to underused any of your organ and see what happen to it!). (d) eventually crime in some extreme case, because the stress release allows some deeper analyses of the situation, so I would avise anybody before to kill a rival, to consider the situation just after a wank or better after an affair :-)

This writing is considered self-therapeutical, but I think it could be useful to many. good luck!

An addict!

PS :

- trying hard to quit, thanks to Wikipedia it gives an incredible substitute for the porn curiosity, probably some form of Freudian sublimation.

- I think the above idea could be developed further, but please separate that from religion, nothing to do with it on my point of view, a for many I think the problem is not stopping the masturbation, but stopping the ONLINE masturbation!! So we got two tendencies for looking at porn addiction, the religious and the non religious, completely incompatible, so to avoid conflicts on the writing side, we should separate this topic into two topics religion flavoured and without, so everybody could write and read things in peace.

- my god I am getting a Wikipedia addiction :-) let's talk in Wikipedia about Wikipedia addiction and try to promote it, looks like the articles number in skycrapping exponentially ! We get the idea here of transfer of addiction, for example now it's very late and I am heading straigh to bed without any risk of tennis elbow :-)

---

Next part about 6 month later :

Thanks for leaving this self therapeutical paragraphs on! I finally got off for good! More than 2 months ago by now, because I realised that porn was a real obstacle for meeting new women! They were sort of never gorgeous enough and I was trying to quickly zap (click!) to the next one! Experimentally wise, it looks like you stop hard (count a good month) and it happens again, real life that times :-)

Good luck

PS : I got to handle other addictions by now (night surfing and chocolate, but these one seems slightly easier, easier to talk about too!)

I'm happy to hear that you got rid of the addiction and that self-therapy actually works on this one!

[edit] The Self Test

Hey, i'm removing the line: "Many informal "self-tests" have been written (for example, here), but do not appear to have been normed or statistically validated." from the beginning. Not only is it an unneccisary statement, but the site it links to seems to be one of very few self-tests available, and the site is incredibly religously charged. To say it hasn't been normed or statistically validated is an understatement, the website it links to is simply a checklist for yourself (not a 'self-test' at all).

[edit] NPOV

Is this NPOV?

Slight edit towards NPOV. More work needed. -- The Anome 17:13, 8 Sep 2003 (UTC)

This page has been edited enough to make it NPOV. 69.243.41.28 01:32, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)

No, it really hasn't. It's still blatantly POV. In my opinion, for what it's worth, but that seems to be the general idea of a bunch of people on the talk page. —Simetrical (talk) 22:48, 10 May 2005 (UTC)

I put the NPOV banner back up because this article is describing porn addiction as just an invention of moralists, while ignoring the empirical evidence that they are millions of people who have at least some trouble stopping, some of whom have a severe problem. 205.217.105.2 16:37, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

The fun part is that it seems to attack both masturbation (or at least masturbation using pornography as stimulus) AND sexual "deviations" ("The addict loses their perception of what is socially acceptable. Illegal material or those considered taboo, immoral, or repulsive seems "normal."" -- that's pretty POV because it implies anything that is not socially acceptable or simply not legal, is automatically a Bad Thing(TM), which just doesn't work given legislative and social relativity -- maybe the "deviation" isn't CREATED by the "addiction" but only discovered that way).

The concept of the porn addiction as stated in this article is unacceptably blurry and badly defined. This seems to be more of a description of moral decline caused by access to pornography rather than a serious description to a mental addiction in the psychological sense.

A disputed topic cannot be presented this way. The only "professional" sources seem to be American, and probably are heavily influenced by Western religions and ideologies.

If this article -- as is -- is labelled as NPOV, Wikipedia should be reconsidered. (Note: I am not saying it is impossible to get addicted to pornography, I'm just saying the "description" of this addiction is flawed by personal opinion -- even if the persons are academics) --Ashmodai 14:38, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

"they are [sic] millions of people who have at least some trouble stopping, some of whom have a severe problem." Well, see, that's exactly the reason many people find it hard to take "porn addiction" seriously. Do some people have a severe problem with pornography? Sure they do. Some people also have a severe problem not going back and checking their car locks seven or eight times just to make sure they actually locked those doors. This proves nothing about addictive qualities to car doors. Meanwhile, the figure that "millions of people ... have at least some trouble stopping" is meaningless without presuming that they have good reason to stop. of course, we have people who would swear up and down that pornography is inherently damaging, degrading, objectifying, promotes dental caries, etc... the trouble is that they have very little hard scientific evidence to back it up, relying instead on dubious anecdotal evidence, including that provided by serial killers. So if millions of people have no reason not to enjoy a good stress-relieving wank to the smut of their choice, it's not any wonder that they "have some trouble" stopping, it's a wonder that they waste their time trying. -- Antaeus Feldspar 23:28, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Unnamed series of studies

Removed from the article:

From an article entitled Subtle Dangers of Pornography:

In a series of studies, researchers observed numerous persistent changes in perceptions concerning sexuality and sexual behavior after repeated exposing (i.e., six 1-hours weekly sessions) volunteers to pornography. These include the trivialization of rape as a criminal offense, exaggerated perceptions of the prevalence of most sexual practices, increased callousness toward female sexuality and concerns, dissatisfaction with sexual relationships and diminished caring for and trust in intimate partners.

Can we have something other than a report of an un-named "series of studies" here? Cites of the actual studies would be a good first step. -- The Anome 08:00, 24 Jun 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Ted Bundy

Remaining in the article:

Before his execution Ted Bundy told how his consumption of violent pornography helped "shape and mold" his violence into "behaviour too terrible to describe". He said that he felt that violence in the media, "particularly sexualised violence", sent boys "down the road to being Ted Bundys".

I very much doubt that an endorsement from Bundy particularly advances the anti-porn position. -- The Anome 08:07, 24 Jun 2004 (UTC)

You'd be surprised how many anti-porn crusaders will trot this point out. Apparently, no endorsement is too out there.

[edit] Evidence needed to back up statement

From the article (my emphasis):

Occasional exposure to nudity does not turn people into serial killers, however there is unpopular evidence that a small number of people who view pornography do develop addictions which lead to violent and anti-social behavior.

What evidence precisely? Cites, please. -- The Anome 08:11, 24 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Anome, thankyou for your edits and improvements. I wanted to add some useful information

about connections between pornography and violence, but did feel that some of it did

sound opinionated.

Comment 1. Unfortunately, the website does not cite the studies that were quoted.

Perhaps this is a good basis to remove them.

Comment 2. I found the quote from Ted Bundy to be insightful. I've also heard

David Berkowitz (now a born-again Christian) tell of how his pornography

addiction contributed to some of his behaviour - however could not find a website to cite

from (heard only on the radio). I don't think I included it to promote a certain

anti-porn position, just thought it was insightful.

Comment 3. I guess the only evidence I can give is that from the words of Ted and

David themselves. I might try searching for some websites another time to back these

up further.

Thanks again — SimonEast 05:02, 25 Jun 2004 (UTC)

I'm really not sure serial killers are the best people to be giving guidance about these matters; and I'm quite astonished that you consider their self-serving statements to be of any worth whatsoever. Isn't it remarkable how they become "born-again" after getting caught, rather than before, when it might have made a difference to their future victims? Also, I can't imagine ever wanting to consider myself to be on first-name terms with mass murderers I've never met. Eew. -- The Anome 22:47, May 11, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Medlina links (mostly anti-porn)

[Added later] Found this page with many links (looks to be mainly anti-porn) with numerous quoted studies and essays. Some may have some reliable information, perhaps someone could look into them.
http://www.medlina.com/pornography.htm

I would like to add a few words and see what comes back... a little background... i am writing a psychology paper on hypersexuality for school and i found this site. it is informative to have all of these opinions here to refer to for insite (im not gonna quote you or anything, but i wanted to thank you for the open talk) Thank you for writing out here what you feel inside.

I do think however that learning from anyone's mistakes is a big part of not ending up there yourself, so maybe we should listen to reformed serial killers advice (with caution, of course) more often. It is an important part of life to grow and learn. It's a plus that we don't have to be there ourselves inorder to benefit from the lesson.69.231.113.109 21:54, 10 November 2006 (UTC)Agatha

[edit] From a journalist...

As a journalist, it would be great if the person who wrote this article could possibly be objective. This is an encyclopedia which is supposed to be factual and objective. I did not come looking for this person's opinion. I came looking for some unbiast information to include in my newpaper article about pornography addiction.

Wikipedia needs to tighten up on its writers because they're slacking and it reflects badly on them.

Please, don't write to inform the public if you can't do right.

As a journalist, do you think you could learn to spell? Moreover, as a journalist do you think you could learn to contruct a sentence using English grammar correctly? I think your point is that this article isn't of a neutral view point. This is something already being discussed on this page with a view to rectification. ShizuokaSensei 00:29, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Point of view that pornography addiction doesn't exist

The article does not provide any arguments supporting the point of view:

"Not everyone believes that pornography addiction exists, or that the harmful effects ascribed to it are real." Nerd65536 05:15, 28 Oct 2004 (UTC)

For every non-physiological addiction, you can find people who claim that it's not a

"real" addiction. I was talking to a friend just today who had that viewpoint about pornography

addiction, saying it was propaganda and comparing it to the belief that homosexuals can be

cured. 69.243.41.28 01:32, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I'd like to add that "pornography addiction" is a concept that may be popular in some countries, but is nearly unheard of in many and ridiculued even among most people of Western countries. Most people who believe in it being a wide-spread issue also happen to think of masturbation, pornography and/or "sex-for-fun" as sinful or immoral acts, rendering their claims all but trustworthy.

Don't get me wrong, I believe humans can get addicted to nearly anything, but that doesn't mean everyone who oftenly does things which serve no logical purpose other than bringing pleasure in one way or another (masturbation, drinking alcohol, playing computer games) is addicted to it. Especially if the tendency to pursue such pleasure has evolutionary reasons (without masturbation and safer sex the Earth would probably have been turned uninhabitable already) and doesn't harm anyone (waste of time is hardly something you can consider harm).

I think a "masturbation addiction" is only present if the person cannot pursue their everyday life because of it, e.g. if someone feels he HAS to masturbate RIGHT NOW even if he is in a public place (where he would violate laws by pursuing that) or has to do something else that would be vital to his social life or career and still DOES it.

"Porn addiction" on the other hand would probably be less related to sexuality and more to a collecting obsession. The addiction would be the need to gather pornography by any means possible rather than acquiring it for actual use -- although that then would rather be an obsessive disorder than an actual addiction.

So either you are addicted to masturbation (although I think that "addiction" has too many negative connotations due to widespread hysteria about addictions -- especially amongst those who abstain from whatever thing the addiction is related to and thus see every possible use as wrong, stupid and irresponsible) or you are obsessed with pornography, although both may coincide.

I drink alcohol, but it doesn't dominate my lifestyle. I watch pornography, but I don't even spend money on it. I masturbate, but I can have a hard-on without having the instant obsession to get off. Addiction hysteria doesn't do much but waste your own time. Maybe you can get addicted to (obsessed with?) finding possible addictions and enlightening the world with your superior knowledge, too? --Ashmodai 23:25, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

totally agree jamesgibbon 1 July 2005 11:38 (UTC)

Partially agree, but what if a person really wants to stop wasting SO MUCH time on porn, but they are not able to stop, surely that at least smells like an addiction?

Exactly. It's completely irrelevant why I want to give up porn, the only thing that matters is that I want to give up porn and have so-far found it extremely difficult. The definition of "addiction" in the Oxford dictionary is "the fact or condition of being addicted to a particular substance, thing, or activity", and they use drugs and gambling as examples. It seems clear to me anyone who views porn regularly (daily in my case) is addicted. Wether or not that addiction is *harmful* is another issue entirely, but it's definitely an addiction. --203.206.11.30 16:13, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Scientific model for addiction

What is needed is to use a scientific model for addiction. The doctor cited in the article is but a single source. I'd recommend using the DSM-IV-TR criteria for addiction -- namely habituation and withdrawl. Some of the finer points are covered in the definition, but it's not neutral in this piece.

[edit] Translations

apart from a german article (which may need some work still) there is no similar wikipedia-article in any other language. Why not translate it and edit some articles in french, spanish, ... Go Ahead!--213.6.4.89 22:48, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Spam filter

Once again, the spam filter is malfunctioning and blocking a slew of sites that were already on the page, but now have been put on the blacklist. I had to disable all links to post new content. When they fix it, someone please go through and add an h to each link (i.e. ttp:// -> http://) 69.243.41.28 02:13, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Escalation

I can personally attest to the existence of the "escalation" phenomenon which appears under the Diagnosis heading. I've gotten to the point where I prefer to see women with their clothes off when I'm on the internet. Who knows where this will lead? I am, frankly, scared. Superking 19:21, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)

You have a reason to be scared. I felt the same way a couple of years ago. Now I need to see women tied up and humiliated to get aroused and I'm wondering where this is will lead... --209.124.33.30 00:44, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Be afraid. One day you might need pictures of blonde one-legged blind Asian midget lesbians tied up with blue scarfs while being anally penetrated by Hispanic brown dames in order to get anything close to an errection. You're going to hell in a hanbasket, I tell ya.

Anyway. Let's restrict the message boardness to a minimum. Could someone archive this stuff so we can get back to the real issues? --Ashmodai 22:44, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I can personally attest to having no such experience whatsoever. I'm aroused just as easily as before. I still consider myself an addict because the time spent on porn is not worth it, but I have not been desensitized at all. I wonder, if there is any statistical evidence for desensitization, it is a crucial point though.

I have been retailing pornography for over a decade, and anecdotally speaking, I have not seen customers, even those who rent movies multiple times per week, show any consistent escalation. There have been temporary trends, for example a brief popularity of foot fetish movies, but behavior seems to normalize and customers return to their primary interest. It appears to me that for the most part, viewing pornography regularly simply makes one more comfortable pursuing curiosities that may have already existed. There has been no evidence that pornography causes these desires vs. allows a person to pursue them. By the same token, did violent images make Ted Bundy a psychopathic killer or simply help him develop his inherent tendencies? The sheer number of nonviolent consumers I think would encourage the latter conclusion.

[edit] Staggering naivete

From the article:

Another proposed criterion for diagnosis of online pornography addiction is that the user masturbates in front of the computer, while viewing the online porn.

Crikey! People using porn as an aid for masturbation? Surely not. I'm shocked, I tell you, shocked! I always thought they used it as a reference for figure drawing; pardon me whilst I adjust my entire world-view. -- The Anome 10:01, Apr 30, 2005 (UTC)

I take an anatomy class in college, and I use porn to study for tests. But masturbating? That's just beyond sick. Superking 15:57, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I can't stop laughing now. Thanks :-D Linuxbeak | Desk 03:05, May 17, 2005 (UTC)

Oh come on, it's a perfectly non-naive criteria. Stress on the "in front of, while viewing" part as opposed to "for sexual arousal", e.g viewing porn as an aid for having sex with a real life partner (like Al and Peg Bundy).

[edit] Well, here's a try

I agree the article needs a good bit of work, esp. on NPOV. I just gave it a try on the Diagnosis section. I took out the occasional loaded adective, but mostly added actual citations and quotations of domain experts. I dropped the quote of examples from Cline's criteria, because they looked silly taken totally out of context, while Cline's article (to which I added a cite) is considerably more reasonable as a whole. He talks mostly about cases where extreme use of pornography seriously impacts a person's life and relationships -- sounds just about like addiction to anything else -- alcohol, drugs, golf....

Anyway, here's hoping adding some specifics and references improves the entry some.

Sderose 23:42, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Online pornography addiction section

I removed that section, because it seems redundant to me. Although it makes sense to include information about how the internet may have exacerbated the pornography addiction problem, the section didn't do that very well. It only described online pornography addiction as somehow a subset of pornography addiction. This is about as useful as having a section entitled "Beer Addiction" in an article on alcoholism. The Amazing Superking July 4, 2005 02:09 (UTC)

Well, if there was a substantial contingent of those addressing the problem of alcoholism who believed that beer was somehow particularly addictive, then it would in fact be useful to reflect exactly that fact (and of course, by 'fact' I mean the fact that some people believe it.) I personally believe that it, along with the notion that there's more than a meager population of people who could truly be described as porn addicts, is complete BS. But I can't justify eliminating the fact that among those who do believe that porn warps your brain, many and perhaps most of them believe that Internet porn warps your brain at the speed of light. I'm restoring that section, and since I think Everyking's version of the intro actually reads smoother, that as well. -- Antaeus Feldspar 4 July 2005 14:39 (UTC)

[edit] Reality check

Obviously not all porn users are addicts. Not all porn users will become addicts. Some counselors even recommend pornography use in couples counseling. All true.

It is dishonest or naive to not recognize that pornography addiction is a very real problem.

Not all drinkers become alchoholics...should we then ignore the reality of alchoholism? Some marijuana users never gateway into harder drug use. Pah! What then is the concern? Not all drug users are addicts...shall we not research and explore drug addiction and its causes?

"A very real problem"? That depends on what, specifically, you mean by "real". There is a known case on record where a man went to jail for robbing a bank to feed his obsession. What was his obsession? What was so important to him that he robbed a bank to get the money for it? Baseball cards.

Now, can we look at the severity of this particular case and say it is not a "very real problem" for the man who has that depth of addiction/obsession? Surely we cannot. But then we must also acknowledge a fact that this case makes clear: "very real" does not mean "very prevalent". This is exactly the logical leap that most people who talk about the seriousness of "pornography addiction" blithely jump right over: "You cannot deny that somewhere, out of the 6.5 trillion people on this planet, some of them have what can be classed as a porn addiction. You cannot deny that if someone is as obsessed with porn as this other guy was with baseball cards, it is a very real problem for them. Therefore it's a very serious problem for everybody, that everybody should be told could happen to anyone who ever consumes porn." See the little gap in the logic there? -- Antaeus Feldspar 04:17, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

Doesn't mean that it's a serious problem for a significant number of people. IMO the numbers are probably higher than believed, because hidind porn addiction is relatively easy. I should know. I am a porn addict. And though I've never "robbed a bank" for porn, I have wasted many hours on porn instead of doing things I would rather do, including freelance work -- my addiction costs me money!

--151.201.16.185 02:44, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

I don't know the last poster, but it should be pointed out that wasting time, even if it costs you work, may be symptomatic of a procrastination problem or an anxiety one. Other people might play Zoog or, for that matter, surf Wikipedia under the same circumstances. This is not addiction, though it may be a compulsive behavior.

[edit] Chicken or the egg?

I think it's rather ridiculous to argue that men (or women) do NOT get addicted to pornography. Anything that appeals to any of our basic drives and desires can turn into an addiction (food, for example). I think a lot of individuals who participate in the use/misuse of pornography will go to great lengths to rationalize the behavior. What remains to be seen is whether the pornography CAUSES the addiction or the addictive personality must PRE-EXIST the presentation of pornography. It is not society's or government's role to prevent temptation. People who ACT OUT their fantasies in criminal ways should be punished (rapists, child molesters, etc.) whether or not pornography played any factor in their behavior.

I heartily concur. I am however curious to know what misuse of pornography entails. I think that a lot of the controversy associated with this subject, particularly among the so-called moral majority, is that masturbation for its own sake is something that is considered an inherently antisocial habit, and one whoses participants are somehow incapable of normal interaction with other 'normal' folk. This in spite of the fact that just about everyone on the planet has done it. A similar attitude befalls those who smoke cigarettes and /or drink alcohol in some societies (that they are somehow 'other'). The subject would seem much more straightforward if these thinly veiled prejudices were discounted.

By refering to the religious beliefs of others as "thinly veiled prejudices," you clearly indicate that you hold these religious beliefs to be wrong, and your view of sexuality (and smoking and drinking) to be right. To one holding these religious beliefs, you clearly do not have a NPOV.

... I think you may need to correct your understanding of Wikipedia's standards. Wikipedia demands that the articles be NPOV. It does not demand or even expect that individual editors will "have a NPOV". -- Antaeus Feldspar 00:21, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Semantic problem, redux

I think the disagreement here is between the people who use the primary meaning of "addiction" ("Compulsive physiological and psychological need for a habit-forming substance" -- American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition), and those who believe that the secondary meaning ("The condition of being habitually or compulsively occupied with or or involved in something.") justifies the use of the word to describe avid use of pornography, and make no distinction between the two meanings.

The second definition of "addiction" ("habit or compulsion") is figurative and could be used to mean "to have a habit" in just about any situation ("I'm addicted to flying kites", "might as well face it, you're addicted to love").

This second usage is metaphorical, like saying "I'm starving", when you mean "I'm hungry". Now, in a medical context, starvation is well-defined: it involves lack of food to the point of illness or death. The secondary usage of "starving" is not literal, and should not be confused with the first.

Similarly, addiction has a precise meaning in a medical context. In my opinion, the first meaning is the correct one when we are talking about medical matters: it is well defined and very specific ("physiological and psychological", "habit-forming substance").

However, once you begin to conflate the two meanings, you start to blur meaning to the point of nonsense. Suggesting that addiction(2) is synonymous with addiction(1), simply because the two senses share a common word, is just as careless as suggesting that starving(2) is the same as starving(1), and leads to the same sort of logical error.

Now, there's nothing wrong in principle with the concept of excessive use of pornography, and nothing wrong with suggesting that it is a problem, or that something could, or should, be done about it (although that clearly is, and should be reported as, a POV). It's just that we just shouldn't call it an "addiction".

Now, I know that some people do consider that addiction(2) to pornography use is actually driven by a form of internal chemical addiction(1). While this does not involve the logic error above, this is a strong that is far from being a mainstream medical or scientific view. Exceptional claims in general require exceptional evidence; for NPOV, this should require both detailed cites of sources for this POV, and the evidence they cite for these claims. Unfortunately, ising the word "addiction" in the title of this article begs the question, and blurs the issue at the outset.

As a first attempt to resolve this, I suggest this article should be renamed to something that does not contain the word "addiction": perhaps "excessive use of pornography"? The article could then discuss the issue, including the contentious one as to whether high levels of pornography use actually do involve a form of internal chemical addiction(1), not to mention whether it is possible to define what "excessive" means in this context, without begging the question in the title. -- The Anome 09:09, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

No. The word 'addiction' is fine in this context. A gambling addication and a heroin addiction are very different problems, yet our calling them both addiction does not cause us any confusion. The term 'excessive' is not much use: last week I looked at several hours worth of porn. I had time, it did not cost me much it was not a problem. This week I have looked at less porn yet have just decided its a problem. The fact I am not able to control my behaviour is the problem. The question of whether or not it's excessive is a red herring.

This article MUST be redone without the christain moralizing. (As others have allready stated) All of the links are to religious websites, whose typical solution is: "put your faith in God and respect sex as his gift to humanity." -- I can promise that this will be met with derision by most of the people who come to this article looking for help. Such overt moralizing deminishes the credibilty of the project. People have decided want help to give up, want help to give up -- not cohercing into your church while they are down.

Most of the problems attributed to porn are also prevailent in other activities. (Eg. Porn and domestic violence Vs Hollywood and violence, ...or... Porn and the exploitation of women Vs the cosmetic industry and the exploitation of women.) There are lots of others... Okay, so these are problems, but their nature is complex and not relevent to the addict. Not because the addict is callous and uncaring, but by the time he has searched wiki for 'Porn Addict' he has allready decided he wants to give up, and is looking for methods by which he can achieve this not further demonisation.

-Will (Editors: I would like a gap here to seperate my contribution from the one below.)

There are a few problems, not the least of which is the fact that the subject of porn itself is still taboo. People suffering from porn addiction would be afraid to come forward because such activity strongly insinuates deep lacking in real-world affection and sexuality, which I'm sure anyone experiencing would find utterly shameful and humiliating. It also doesn't help that the other side is a multi-billion dollar industry hell bent on not mere survival, but expansion and indeed mainstream distribution. (One could cite any number of articles covering the recent xxx domain controversy to hear the pornographers' side of the story.) So while the industry can afford to propagate their contention that there is no such thing as porn addiction, the addict suffers in reclusivity. In the meantime, just do a Pubmed search on the topic and you'll discover at least a few WELL WRITTEN, ACADEMIC articles. Reading those articles, this discussion--as well as the article itself--should veer from semantics and opinion, to enumerating the facts and evidence that are currently available.

If it's possible to "discover at least a few WELL WRITTEN, ACADEMIC articles" then discover them. It's not going to achieve much to just assert here that such articles exist (interspersed, of course, with lots of comments about "the industry can afford to propagate their contention" while "the addict" (presumed to exist) "suffers in reclusivity." (slanted language? noooo! I'm sure no one would ever use slanted language to try and smear "the pornographers"!) -- Antaeus Feldspar 23:37, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Antaeus Feldspar, you sound rather bitter, and consequently a bit irrational. "Do some people have a severe problem with pornography? Sure they do. Some people also have a severe problem not going back and checking their car locks seven or eight times just to make sure they actually locked those doors. This proves nothing about addictive qualities to car doors." You're confusing Obsessive Compulsive Disorder with addiction. And your point of view is essentially conspiratory and/or mearly antagonistic: "A disputed topic cannot be presented this way. The only "professional" sources seem to be American, and probably are heavily influenced by Western religions and ideologies." First of all, I think the article makes quite clear that the topic is disputed, and it actually reads biased against the notion of porn addiction. Second, let's keep in mind that for a long time, no one thought smoking was harmful, and it wasn't even until relatively recently that the cigarette manufacturers conceeded that their products are addicting. Also look at the asbestos industry, or I should say the asbestos litigation industry -- attorneys continue making millions off companies who knew their products were harmful but did little to nothing to protect employees and consumers. Even before that, it took quite some time to build consensus that asbestos exposure is indeed harmful. So it is not unreasonable to assume that the true prevalence of porn addiction, whether negligible or significant, will take quite some time to come to light as well, especially considering the reclusive nature of the activity itself, compared with the social nature of drinking and smoking. You're also guilty of what you accuse others of: "But then we must also acknowledge a fact that this case makes clear: "very real" does not mean "very prevalent". This is exactly the logical leap that most people who talk about the seriousness of "pornography addiction" blithely jump right over: "You cannot deny that somewhere, out of the 6.5 trillion people on this planet, some of them have what can be classed as a porn addiction." Where did you get that quote? It's not in this discussion, and it's not in the article itself, either. No one was making that leap. And I've never heard anyone making that leap in conversation about the topic. You also claim "the trouble is that they have very little hard scientific evidence to back it up, relying instead on dubious anecdotal evidence, including that provided by serial killers." As per the former, you're confusing published case studies for anecdotal evidence (unless you didn't know such case studies exist -- http://ajp.psychiatryonline.org/cgi/content/full/158/10/1590 for example). As per the latter, you're equating sworn-in self-testamony with anectodal hearsay. So quit playing devil's advocate, especially since the article actually reads biased towards your opinion, and keep an open mind while research continues.

"such activity [viewing porn] strongly insinuates deep lacking in real-world affection and sexuality" Hmmm? Is that your own (unhelpfull and moralising) point of veiw? Isnt such moralising the whole problem here? It is possible that you are putting constraints on your own perception of reality and sexuality. - will

[edit] That should do it for now

I got rid of all the baseless, unreferenced opinions and kept it simple. Others may add to it as necessary, but please, let's keep it informed. Let's keep it to what we know, not what we would like to think. It's a very heated topic, with a multi-billion dollar business on one side, and consumers--from the happily casual to the disturbingly obsessed--on the other. Keep it real, and keep it civil. If you can't find at least one solid reference for your statement, don't bother writing.

[edit] I see the Wiki Nazis are hard at work

Almost as soon as I rid this article of the rambling, biased, unreferenced banter, a Wiki Nazi replaced my unbiased, referenced edit with the same old garbage. First of all, let's be honest--making statements and appending "citation needed" is a cop out for laziness, or simply opinion (i.e., POV in Wiki-geek-speak). Second of all, I'd like to know what is biased about "Regardless of opinion, it is important to acknowledge that scientific research on this subject is in its infancy, and it is thus premature at this point in time to draw definitive conclusions." And what's biased about citing several articles published in peer-reviewed scientific journals? This is in stark contrast to the opinionated, ambiguous, and unsubstantiated statementes in the current version. For example, "While some believe that it does exist, it can be argued that the majority of people who view and enjoy pornography, like the majority who enjoy any activity, will probably never encounter the harmful effects attributed to it when it is viewed habitually." Indeed, the article is now once again riddled with assertions qualified merely by "citation needed," not to mention cynicism, like putting the term pornography addiction in quotes.

When I used to only read articles on this site, I enjoyed it. But now that I've actually participated, it's obvious to me that Wikipedia is a forum, parading as an encyclopedia. Anyone and everyone can post a topic, assert their own opinions, and shrudge off responsibility with cop outs like "citation needed." Having an arbitrary, ambiguous rule set and an arbitrary award system doesn't help. Wiki is a sad excuse for rigorous academia and scientific research. (BTW, reading some authors' profile pages containing past arguments, it's painfully clear that some "Wikipedians" have an agenda.)

I see where this article is going, and I'll have no further part of it (much to the Wiki Nazis' delight, I imagine). Hey, while you're at it, why don't add icons and smileys to the forum! {{unsigned|24.44.110.223}

Hi! I'm the "nazi" who reverted your work, and I stand by my decision. You gutted the article, removing the good and bad alike. This is a step backwards, so I undid it. And I'd undo it again. Thank you for understanding. Al 18:55, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

When an article is so biased, cynical, poorly referenced, and poorly written, it is better to wipe the slate clean and start anew with a well-written, fair, and well-referenced introduction. I had made it clear in my comment that my entry was to be used as an exemplary starting point. Good luck trying to doctor this pathetic entry, as I'm sure you remember going through similar pains when drafting papers in school. Like I said, I've lost faith in this forum and won't be touching the article again. So knock yourself out!

Regarding the question about why the sentence using terms "While some people believe" and "it can be argued" seems to fit the definition of WP:AWW Avoid Weasel Words. The issue is that it's important for readers to know just who is making a claim and not doing so can make reading confusing and leave readers with questions about evidence. For example, I could argue the statement that that 'some people believe' or 'it can be argued' that Alienus is the cause of cancer [1], is a true statement you probably would want a little more evidence behind the claim. :) Antonrojo 02:44, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] No research done claim

After a little searching I found several studies linked here [2]. I think that whether these are really 'scientific' or 'valid' studies is a matter for discussion but that SOME research has been done should be mentioned. The connections between media depictions and violence and pornography and crime or psychological dysfunction is a popular and controversial area of research in social science. Antonrojo 02:44, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Merge with Sexual addiction ?

Merge with Sexual addiction, Cybersex???

[edit] Merge -- I think it should be

I made some edits today to try to neutralize it. I really do think it should be either merged with or made a sub-heading of sexual addiction, because a porn addict is a sex addict. Porn addiction is simply a method of acting out, as is compulsive masturbation or serial cheating, etc. I have been working in this field for over 8 years and while I can understand the religious fervor over it, it really should be treated as a medical issue, not a sociological or religous one. Regardless of whether or not you want to defend or end porn, the fact is that pornography addiction is defined by a compulsive use of it to the detriment of one's life (ie. time, money, and suffering relationships). As with any other substance/activity, some people can use it without any problems and some cannot. --Madmumbler 19:30, 4 August 2006 (UTC) MadMumbler.

Agree that articles should be merged. I reverted your attempt to NPOV the article. I can see why you made this effort, but it had the unfortunate effect of littering the article with even more weasel words (see WP:WEASEL). What this article desperately needs in any NPOVing attempt is material deriving from reputable sources WP:RS --Pathlessdesert 14:08, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Don't fool yourself, it does harm others

Does it exist? What harm does it do? First hand experience. As a person living with an addicted spouse I can tell you first hand that it does exist, it does harm others and it does seem to get worse. At first, it didn't appear to make a difference. I took the attitude that all men look at pictures of naked women and I didn't really care. I didn't understand why my husband wanted to look at pornography alone because I thought it was a stimulant, but, I thought "to each his own". Seven or eight years later I can see my interpretation was nieve. Now, my husband leaves our bed earlier and earlier to hit the internet before I wake up and he never touches me. The net history is full of porn and I feel like he is sinking deeper and deeper into himself. His communication is further and further away from me and I cannot even attempt to bring the subject up to him. He refuses to get close to me except about twice a month if the moon is just right, the beer is just right and his mother called at just the right hour, (OK, I am kidding about the mother), even then it is not exactly a "close" thing it is more an "enjoy" thing. The porn that he views is getting closer and closer to prostitution and I do find he is surfing sites where there are single ladies posting their desires to hook up for pay. He treats me terrible and blames me for all the problems but cannot put a finger on what I did. It is always a combination of a lot of things I did over several years. The saddest thing of all is I see him falling deeper and deeper into selfishness. I honesly contribute this selfishness to his addiction and his quest to get his growing needs met. So, for those individuals who question the truth behind the label of addiction I would ask you to honest look into yourself. Does your pornography use alter your way of viewing the world in any sense. Are you neglecting yourself or any other person or thing you care about because you are spending time with pornography. If your answer is yes to either question, start making a log of those things that are altered by your use. Be honest, you might not like what you see. Ohiowoman 18:42, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

This is a sad story, and surely the man in question should be seeking counseling, but I think the writer is probably unqualified to make a diagnosis, and from her own description of her husband's withdrawal from her, is probably not aware enough of what is going on with him to attribute his behavior to the influence of pornography. Anecdotes like this are moving and tragic, but they are not scientific proof of anything. Is the pornography use a disease or just a symptom of a more complex problem?

[edit] Dobson is no expert on anything except fundamentalist opportunism

I think that the article needs to be thoroughly overhauled, and the references to fascist theocratic demagogues like James Dobson put in their appropriate context: that of a powerful, politically-connected opportunist cashing in on a real social problem to promote his own reactionary, fundamentalist agenda in a most insidious and intimate way.

These so-called "religious" approaches to the problem of porn addiction are fundamentally and irretrievably flawed not because of the broader political agenda behind them, however; they are flawed because they have no basis whatsoever in science--in empiricial observation or serious theoretical consideration. They are an outgrowth rather of a particular ideology that also considers homosexuality deviant and sinful, and that promotes and enforces a subservient role for women. Dobson and others fit the facts to this agenda. There's no way that they can be held accountable to any rigorous, reality-based analysis of the phenomenon of porn addiction, which certainly needs to be understood more fully, because they ultimately reject any standard of measurement that is based in reality rather than their own narrow, hateful brand of Christianity.

They should not be thought of or portrayed as an expert in this or any other matter. If they are included at all, it should be as a footnote showing the kind of dangerous and insidious opportunism that has attached itself to this issue.

==

[edit] Hilarious!!! ==

The rant above was one of the most baseless, propoganda-ridden ad hominem attacks I've ever read. Perhaps that is why I am the first to waste time in replying to it.

[edit] Merge Sexual addiction with Pornography addiction?

Information is repeated in both places. I guess sexual addiction should be considered as the main article. Other types of sexual addiction (e.g. Pornography addiction, cybersex, etc) should refer back to Sexual addiction when the same information applies to both of them and focus only on what is specific in this particular behavior.

Saaraleigh 19:48, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Weak Disagree. I lean towards thinking that the sexual addiction article is already fairly big and that when the pornography-specific elements are added to Sexual addiction it may push it over the top. Not to mention, that article might then have an disproportionate amount of pornography related material not related to the other forms (sex, masturbation, cybersex). I suspect that, if Pornography addiction is indeed seen as a subset of Sexual addiction, the best solution is to refine Pornography addiction to refer back to Sexual addiction and for Sexual addiction to have a brief pornography summary and have a "Main article" link. More work, but I think it would be better than mashing it all into Sexual addiction. - BalthCat 22:04, 7 September 2006 (UTC)