It's interesting how 'scientific training' inserts itself here. If you're liberal towards pornography, then no doubt you can find supporting 'scientifically-based' articles showing that pornography is harmless, and if you're opposed to porn, then you could also find or design scientific studies that demonstrate harmfulness. Because it's really a moral issue, not a 'scientific' one – it's about how humans treat each other, how we treat ourselves, and sexual attitudes and behaviours, none of which are scientific issues per se, although science may cast light on some aspects of them. But 'science' is invoked as a kind of moral arbiter or necessary qualification, even when it's not specifically relevant.
But then again when you look at erectile dysfunction and stuff like that, it's a real physiological occurrence and it probably needs to be examined through a scientific lens.
True, but I think the correlation of young men with ED & excessive pr0n usage would be easy to establish. It’s very easy to see. Up until Internet, a man under 50 with ED was rare. Now, not so much. I guess you could try and find a different environmental influence if you looked hard enough, but every young guy with ED need only search his feelings to know the truth.
I know this isn't the type of explanation you were looking for, but this sounds to me like "Gell-Mann Amnesia": seeing how incompetently a source handles something you know about and then assuming that it is more competent on subjects that you don't know anything about.
It's true... you can find evidence for whatever you want. You can find evidence for a flat earth. But that's not how knowledge is produced in an encyclopedia. I don't think it's a moral issue. The article clearly speaks about NoFap as an effort to combat porn addiction. And of course, addiction is clearly a subject of scientific inquiry.
I don't think this is a satisfying answer. What we all know here is not an extreme reality. If we chose any member at random here, they would write a waaay better article on the subject than this. I've read articles on Wikipedia after spending years and decades on a subject, still impressed and still learning about it (as it's a contribution from many members). Even on research subjects at PhD level.
The mental health professions still don't agree that there is necessarily such a thing as 'porn addiction'. I googled the phrase 'is porn addiction real?' and the top answer, dated August 30th this year, is 'While accessing pornographic materials is not inherently harmful, many people find it hard to stop. Even still, the mental health community has yet to recognize porn addiction as a real, diagnosable mental health condition, like drug or alcohol addiction.' (Bold in original). The second entry says 'Porn addiction is not a true "addiction" according to the American Psychological Association.' Of course you can find other opinions, and I'm not saying I accept that it is or isn't an addiction, although personally I think of it in terms of habituation rather than addiction. (Maybe you could argue that all addictions are habits, but that not all habits are addictions.) It's a very slippery subject. I remember reading a few years ago, how the publication of the DSM IV (the standard text on diagnosis of psychological and psychiatric disorders) was delayed for years by arguments over what was and wasn't really a disease or disorder. It is an area where the well-known 'fact-value dichotomy' is thrown into sharp relief.
You make a really good point. It may be that only data on things that are actually physical (like rates of ED in porn watchers vs non porn watchers) can be seen as not subjective. When we get into the psychological world, I think even pure data can be misconstrued and used in favor for or against something depending on one's biases. And that's where addiction has its worst effect right?
yes, you're completely right. i'm not saying abstinence is bad (!!) or that information here/on ybop about neuroplasticity and stuff is scientifically incorrect. i'm just saying that the way that people "traditionally" go about quitting is quite flawed. sure, the population of NoFap probably isn't a great representation of the general population, but it's probably a decent representation of the people who are using NoFap's methods for quitting PMO. and, considering how many thousands of people are on the forum, the success stories section is not very lively... plus, while it's sad, there are just as many cases of people relapsing after 100+ days as there are success stories of people making it to the same mark, and the issue is the fact that the way NoFap fights addiction doesn't actually kill the root of the issue. stopping PMO isn't the issue. in other words, the lack of abstinence is just a symptom of an underlying mental outlook issue. (also, it's harder for "casual" users to quit because it's easier for them to deny the fact that they have an addiction and avoid treating it accordingly) "Allen Carr's Easyway is clinically proven through two randomised controlled trials. In 2020 a UK randomised clinical trial found Allen Carr's Easyway as good as, if not better than, the Gold Standard NHS Programme which uses NRT & 1-1 psychological support and in 2018 an Irish trial found that Allen Carr’s Easyway was almost twice as effective as other smoking cessation methods available on Health Service." ironically, this quote is from wikipedia lol, so here: [link to first study] [link to second study]
Well, it's a forum with a (largely) anonymous, male membership, which puts us in the company of eg incels, pick up artists, the so-called alt-right, etc. As a left-leaning, woolly liberal as they come person, I've heard for years that nofap is 'far right'. I assume that anti-pornography is being lumped in with Nazi book burning, censorship of art, etc. Which is almost deliberate point missing. As well as, as stated above, not all of us even want to see pornography banned or censored. I'm always surprised, in fact, when the topic comes up, that all but a minority on here don't wish to see pornography banned. Most people are interested in personal self improvement only, and don't see this as a political movement at all. There is plenty of silly nonsense, alternative beliefs, pseudo-science and even conspiracy theory here - as there is on ANY free forum of ideas. There is also invaluable information, links, facts, intelligent discussion and challenging and engaging exchange of ideas. There is testimony so personal, emotional and poetic that it means more to me than pages and pages of dry statistics.
Probably written/edited by porn supporters, porn companies, a disillusioned fapstronaut, or a combination.
Quoted for truth. This, more than anything I’ve seen so far, strikes are the heart of why I think the Wiki article is what it is. That article reads like a person who heard about NoFap, identified it as a male majority community, and immediately suspected it was a cesspool of misogyny and strident religiosity. They investigated third party coverage of the site long enough to confirm their biases, dashed off an article, and here we are. No pro-porn conspiracy necessary. Porn isn’t the kind of thing that needs a conspiracy to promote it. It’s like alcohol, like refined sugar. It’s compelling enough on its own to proliferate, without some nefarious, black caped villain, or cabal of skeezy board room members who may or may not be literal reptiles, plotting to weaken us and control our thoughts. Porn is, for the end user, fun and makes people feel good. Consequently, porn is profitable. That creates both demand and supply, it’s simple as that.
Doesn't Nofap threaten that profitability though? If you had a financially successful product and there was a group of people citing negative consequences from using that product then wouldn't you want to do whatever you could to keep their voice from being heard? More and more end users are beginning to realise that whilst porn might be fun and makes them feel good(temporarily), it may not be totally without cost thanks to sites like this and others sharing their experiences.
I think you’re overestimating the influence places like this have. People still smoke cigarettes, despite mountains of scientific evidence that it causes cancer and, worse in my opinion, COPD, despite the fact that it’s expensive and nasty, despite huge cultural pressure to not smoke, despite cleaner, healthier alternatives like vaping. Compare that to porn, which as discussed, is not deemed harmful by science or society. If I were a shot caller in the porn industry, I’d keep an eye on NoFap but I wouldn’t worry about it.
I stop using Wikipedia many months ago. Now the only reason I enter in it is for searching birth date/death of people but if iˋm searching something i buy a book, i donˋt like how they pretend to discredit whoever just because that infamous ˋˋcontroversyˋˋ category. Wikipedia is watched by the young generation as some kind of Saviour and when they have to do a work at school they just copy what‘s writed on it. Search these interesting article (iˋm unable to post the links): On DailyMail UK: Nobody should trust Wikipedia,' its co-founder warns: Larry Sanger says site has been taken over by left-wing 'volunteers' who write off sources that don't fit their agenda as fake news On Vice A Bored Chinese Housewife Spent Years Falsifying Russian History on Wikipedia The idea of wikipedia was firstly advanced by Wells, tecnically: H. G. Wells. ‘The Idea of a World Encyclopedia.’ Nature, 138, no. 3500 (28 November 1936) : 917-24. Q. 505N In his quest for worldwide education, Wells later turned to the idea of a universal encyclopedia, a World Brain, from which everyone would be able to educate themselves, and achieve greater intellectual and political freedom. In Wells’s 1936 address to the Royal Institution, published in Nature, he foresees something like the world-wide web, or a version of Wikipedia. (Wells was a friend of Julian Huxley, that guy that firstly spoked about transhumanism ->trashumanism and brother of Aldous Huxley, writer of that distopic world called ˋˋBrave New Worldˋˋ and teacher of George Orwell that writed 1984, donˋt ask why, it is a controversy)
This is an important point, thanks for bringing it up. It's true that the medical community has not recognized it yet as an addiction, and DSM updates are very slow (although there's some progress with regards to sexual compulsions and fetishes). In a way, I sympathize with the scientific community being conservative on matters that haven't been studied extensively. What we have in sites like YBOP or here may be empirically validated, but scientific research and acceptance can take many years. Especially with regards to clinical ground truths and methods, which often appear in medical practice even after decades of research and understanding. Having said that, I still believe the Wikipedia article is too biased. Partly, as many people suggest here, for non-scientific reasons. In what sense? Addictions are defined based on "compulsive continuation of a behavior despite negative consequences in one's life". Isn't this clear about porn addiction by now?
This is also an important point. I guess I may have wrongly overestimate the success rate of people in the community. And I'm sure you're right about the porn behavior associated with other underlying mental issues in many cases. But I still think it's an addiction that develops, which is serious and worth dealing with.
@Evig Faith made a similar comment. I'm not aware of the demographics here, as I've only been active quite recently, but I take your word! Here, I also see some of the problem. There's a lot of nonsense and pseudo-science, but personally I don't feel the need (nor have the energy) to try and dispute any of that. I guess part of it is that we naturally empathize with all members in the community and try to see beyond that, understanding the concerns and effort in such venture. But someone coming from outside, not being able to appreciate these testimonies as you said, could easily ridicule NoFap.
