Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 06:29, 22 March 2007

Archives

1

No research done claim

After a little searching I found several studies linked here . 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)

Merge with Sexual addiction ?

Merge with Sexual addiction, Cybersex???

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)

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.

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)

I agree with BalthCat on this one. Pornography addiction seems like a logical subset of sex addiction, but there appears to be some debate as to whether it is strictly sex addiction; namely, that some say it's a subset of Obsessive Compulsive Disorder (I see no evidence cited for this, but the debate is there anyway). Therefore, a short summary and a link to this article in the sexual addiction article, and refine this one. --71.192.64.235 20:14, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

yes that's a thought...

It's late... and i'm sick and tired of pouring over endless amounts of biased and non NPOV topics deemed 'morally incorrect' and thus censored, warped, and made to hold up as a fake wikified 'article' by people who say "HEY!, go ahead and read this inaccesible non easily peer reviewable book that also costs a bundle and might not be available in your local library!, WP:BE BOLD

you know what I say?

--------                  --------
--------                  --------
        __________________

yes.. .that's right!

I think that we need EXPERTS to help review, and fix up this article A LOT!. It's obviously almost completely biased against pornography, is FILLED iethl inks bloating the dangers of it, and the only thing that doesn't rant against this source of sexual arousal are a few statements from a long forgoteen, probably outdated, and equally inaccessible book as lost as that book on psychosexual infatilism by Sigmund Freud or whoever he was.........

I'll try and fix it up a bit, and i say!, don't give up i n the fight to make wikipedia a valuable source of info that presents nuetral points of view!, if it has one sides POV, then it must have an equal amount from the OTHER side, all of whose information must be backed up and not in a tome deep inside the old rat's hut in the heart of far away and distant riverwood forest.

Am i making myself clear? Nateland 09:04, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

About the leading pornography addiction 'expert' I hate to use a little POV but these sources CAN be claimed dubious... just READ the page on James Dobson. You'd think a few of these groups in favor of getting rid of pornography would be against HIM!. for what he says....

Dobson believes homosexuality can be cured in adults and prevented in children, and is an opponent of the gay rights movement. Focus on the Family sponsors a monthly conference called “Love Won Out,” where many of the speakers are self-professed ex-gays. Held around the U.S., the conference encourages its attendees to believe that "homosexuality is preventable and treatable." According to critics, Focus on the Family asserts that there is a "homosexual agenda" and associates gays with pedophilia.

In his book, Bringing Up Boys, Dobson writes that "Homosexuals deeply resent being told that they selected this same-sex inclination in pursuit of sexual excitement or some other motive.

However, Dobson does not believe that homosexuality is genetic. In his June 2002 newsletter, he states: "There is further convincing evidence that homosexuality is not hereditary. For example, since identical twins share the same chromosomal pattern, or DNA, the genetic contributions are exactly the same within each of the pairs. Therefore, if one twin is 'born' homosexual, then the other should inevitably have that characteristic too. That is not the case. When one twin is homosexual, the probability is only 50 percent that the other will have the same condition. Something else must be operating."

James Dobson is a promoter of patriarchal marriage. He believes men have the divine obligation to lead their families, and women have the divine obligation to submit to their husband's authority. As such he supports the conservative Christian men's organization Promise Keepers, which also believes women should submit to the authority of their husbands. He believes that mothers with any children under the age of eighteen ought not to work outside the home, if finances and temperaments permit them to stay home. Views on corporal punishment and authority

In his pamphlet, Dare to Discipline Dobson advocated the spanking of children of up to eight years old when they misbehave, but warns that "corporal punishment should not be a frequent occurrence" and that "discipline must not be harsh and destructive to the child's spirit." He does not advocate what he considers harsh spanking because he thinks "It is not necessary to beat the child into submission; a little bit of pain goes a long way for a young child. However, the spanking should be of sufficient magnitude to cause the child to cry genuinely."

Dobson recognizes the dangers of child abuse, and therefore considers disciplining children to be a necessary but unpleasant part of raising children that should only be carried out by qualified parents: "Anyone who has ever abused a child -- or has ever felt himself losing control during a spanking -- should not expose the child to that tragedy. Anyone who has a violent temper that at times becomes unmanageable should not use that approach. Anyone who secretly 'enjoys' the administration of corporal punishment should not be the one to implement it."

In his book The Strong-Willed Child, Dobson suggests that by correctly portraying authority to a child, the child will understand how to interact with other authority figures: "By learning to yield to the loving authority... of his parents, a child learns to submit to other forms of authority which will confront him later in his life — his teachers, school principal, police, neighbors and employers."

Dobson stresses that parents must uphold their authority and do so consistently, comparing the relationship between parents and disobedient children to a battle: "When you are defiantly challenged, win decisively." In The Strong-Willed Child, Dobson draws an analogy between the defiance of a family pet and that of a small child, and concludes that "just as surely as a dog will occasionally challenge the authority of his leaders, so will a little child — only more so. (emphasis in original)

When asked "How long do you think a child should be allowed to cry after being punished? Is there a limit?" Dobson responded:

"Yes, I believe there should be a limit. As long as the tears represent a genuine release of emotion, they should be permitted to fall. But crying quickly changes from inner sobbing to an expression of protest... Real crying usually lasts two minutes or less but may continue for five. After that point, the child is merely complaining, and the change can be recognized in the tone and intensity of his voice. I would require him to stop the protest crying, usually by offering him a little more of whatever caused the original tears. In younger children, crying can easily be stopped by getting them interested in something else."

Now i really think that with a man who hoists POV opninions over his shoulder, makes claims which themselves are not proven to have worked and IF and WHEN they did failed 90% of the time.... well....

I think the section on Dobson should be removed.

P.S. MERELY complaining?, and all of those irrelevant links on recovering from pornography addiction.... ------_________------

Dobson, "opponents" out

I'm going to get rid of the irrelevant section on James Dobson's point of view. Are there any other Misplaced Pages articles about OCD-related issues that devote a section to a specific expert's perspective on the topic? This has nothing to do with whether or not porn addiction is real and everything to do with Dobson's opposition to all porn/erotica. Also, I'm changing "opposition" to "skeptics," since we're not talking about people opposed to addiction but people skeptical of the concept of addiction. Jamiem 18:17, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm reverting your change as Dobson is a licensed doctor of psychology and his opinion on the issue is invaluable. I do like the change from "opponents" to "skeptics," however. Jinxmchue 20:58, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Dobson is an extremist POV pusher. He is not a reliable source, and so he cannot be used to cite this article. — coelacan — 15:24, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

That is your POV. Jinxmchue 20:01, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, crazy people do get PhDs sometimes. Licensed or not, the man it absolutely lunatic fringe. Here's his advice for "preventing homosexuality":

"Meanwhile, the boy's father has to do his part. He needs to mirror and affirm his son's maleness. He can play rough-and-tumble games with his son, in ways that are decidedly different from the games he would play with a little girl. He can help his son learn to throw and catch a ball. He can teach him to pound a square wooden peg into a square hole in a pegboard. He can even take his son with him into the shower, where the boy cannot help but notice that Dad has a penis, just like his, only bigger."

Emphasis mine. Extremist sources can only be used in articles about themselves, and then only very carefully. — coelacan — 22:24, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Your POV is showing. Jinxmchue 19:22, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

As is yours. But it doesn't matter what either of our POVs are. Reliability of sources can and must be judged regardless. Let's look at the sources here.

"Life on the Edge", ISBN 0-8499-0927-9, is from W Publishing Group, an imprint of Thomas Nelson (publisher), a conservative Christian publisher. They publish according to ideological criteria, but there's no indication that they have any informed oversight into scientific claims put forth by Dobson. This work by Dobson doesn't appear to have been published in any journals, reputable or not. There's no indication that it's been peer-reviewed. In short, there's no indication that this is anything but pseudoscience, and there's no reliable sourcing for these claims.

"Love Must Be Tough", ISBN 1-59052-355-5, is published by Multnomah Publishers, a conservative Evangelical Christian publisher. Again, they print books by ideological scope, and there's no sign that they have scientific oversight over the claims being put forth here. Again, this has not been published in a peer-reviewed journal. No indication of anything except pseudoscience. These are not reliable sources. They cannot be used to cite this article. I'm taking them out. — coelacan — 21:29, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Whoop-dee-shiznit. I don't see anything in the Wiki policy on RS that discounts material because of a publishers ideological stance. If this were so, there's a hell of a lot of changes that needs to be made on countless Wiki articles. Jinxmchue 05:11, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Nope, but the question is whether these sources are based on scientific research. If the answer is no, we have to ask why prominent space in this article is being given to one guy's non-scientific belief on the matter? Mdwh 05:14, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Prove that it is not based on science and we can discuss that. In the meantime, assuming that this is "one guy's non-scientific belief" is just that: an assumption. Jinxmchue 05:17, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

The burden of proof is upon the one who wants material included in the article. Otherwise we could include all sorts of random people's beliefs, claiming it's up to someone to prove them non-scientific! Mdwh 05:21, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

The burden of proof has already been met. Dobson is a licensed psychologist and has published materials on the issue. That you or someone else doesn't personally agree with his views on pornography does not make them non-scientific. And that is the only basis for which I see people trying to remove this material. "He's a lunatic! His publishers have a ideology I don't agree with!" That's about it. I simply cannot believe this discussion has gone this far. Wiki policy does not back people's personal dislikes. It does back notable people, experts in various fields (e.g. psychology), published materials, etc. Jinxmchue 06:48, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

The burden of proof has not been met. From WP:RS: "A questionable source is one with no editorial oversight or fact-checking process or with a poor reputation for fact-checking. ... Questionable sources may only be used in articles about themselves." His publishers do not have any fact-checking of the scientific claims Dobson is making. Thus, these are not reliable sources. I'm removing the content again. It's not peer-reviewed, so there's no reliability to it. — coelacan — 11:18, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

What is your proof of any of that? Provide it and you will justify your removal of the material. Jinxmchue 14:25, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

The question is not whether he is a psychologist - there must be surely plenty of psychologists who have an opinion on porn, but we don't list that here. The question is what research was this based on? It might make sense to have a section on psychologists' views, but then this should be representative of all psychologists, and not just him.

I also think a problem is the last paragraph, in that it goes into an attack on all pornography, which is not relevant here. So at the least, any inclusion in this article should be limited to the supposed effects of pornography addiction - but as I say, I'm curious what scientific research this was based on. Mdwh 15:53, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree, and would suggest moving the information to his article would be most appropriate. The problem isn't the information itself, it's putting it here. Is the viewpoint based on research, or a viewpoint? If the former, then the research should be listed. His views belong on his own page - consider, we don't have sections for his views on homosexuality in the homosexuality article, and so on, do we? Mdwh 17:03, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

I disagree with including the material - why is his belief on the matter notable for this article? Why don't we also include his position on homosexuality in that article, for example?

Also if you do wish to put it in, please don't remove the merge tag - I have started the discussion already in talk, see my comment above. Mdwh 05:19, 11 March 2007 (UTC) If you are putting

Ah. I was expecting an actual separate discussion with its own header. Perhaps that should be done to avoid further confusion. (And it should be done on the talk page for Dobson's article as that is where the link in the merge box goes to.) Jinxmchue 06:51, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

I've put a note in the Dobson's article now, letting people know of this discussion. Mdwh 15:53, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

the burden of peer review

(Copied from above to avoid further indenting): What is your proof of any of that? Provide it and you will justify your removal of the material. Jinxmchue 14:25, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

You've got it backwards. But while we're here I happen to know a curious aside about Thomas Nelson Publishing that I'd like to share... the CEO of Thomas Nelson says that the only "editorial standards" are that authors must assent to the Nicene Creed and Philippians 4:8. Wow! Doesn't that speak volumes? Anyway, you've got it backwards. Maybe you're not familiar with the peer review process, but a scientific claim is not reliably sourced unless it has been printed in a peer-reviewed scientific journal. It's up to you to show that Dobson's supposed findings here have been subjected to the peer review process of some reliable journal. If that can't be demonstrated, then there's no reason to believe that he's done anything but simply jot down his shower musings and send them off to his publishers. — coelacan — 04:23, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

way too many external links

Most of the external links were not reliable sources. Here are the ones I removed: That's a span of eight diffs, each one has an edit summary relating to the particular reason for that removal, for anyone who's wondering. — coelacan — 17:13, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

I greatly disagree with many of your removals. For example, there is nothing in WP:EL against links to internet ministries. Also, Dobson is an authority and a reliable source as he has a doctorate in psychology. It seems to me that you are removing these things based on your personal distaste for who and what they represent. Jinxmchue 20:06, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Internet ministries are all self-published sources without editorial oversight, and thus not reliable sources per WP:RS. So no internet ministries, sorry. And I've addressed Dobson in the above section. — coelacan — 22:27, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Whew! Just got rid of 19KB of off-topic stuff (anything not discussing alteration to the article). Now I'm going to archive for length. — coelacan — 23:39, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Done, and a diff: the difference between this page and the archive is only what remains here. — coelacan — 23:58, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

I think you are misusing WP:RS for this section. See WP:EL (section 3) for more information. Jinxmchue 17:03, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

All three of these sites are run by Pure Community Ministries. The purpose of them is to convert people to Christianity ("We believe this vision is best carried out through authentic fellowship with Jesus Christ and His people") and bring those who are already Christians around to the "right" way of thinking (" don't allow users to debate the morality of porn").

Let's look at WP:EL's "What should be linked", in full:

1. Articles about any organization, person, web site, or other entity should link to the official site if any.
   • This does not apply, this article is not about an entity. "Pornography addiction" does not have an official website.
2. An article about a book, a musical score, or some other media should link to a site hosting a copy of the work if none of the "Links normally to be avoided" criteria apply.
   • This does not apply, this article is not about a product or other tangible or digital noun.
3. Sites that contain neutral and accurate material that cannot be integrated into the Misplaced Pages article due to copyright issues, amount of detail (such as professional athlete statistics, movie or television credits, interview transcripts, or online textbooks) or other reasons.
   • Are these sites neutral? No. They are Christian ministries for the purpose of converting people to believe in Jesus. Do they have accurate material? They actually don't appear to have material at all; rather, they are just online forums with a bunch of people talking about a bunch of things. The sites fail on both counts here, and either one would have been a stopper.
4. Sites with other meaningful, relevant content that is not suitable for inclusion in an article, such as reviews and interviews.
   • Nothing like reviews or interviews here. Just partisan POV.

Now let's look at WP:EL's "Links normally to be avoided". This one is longer, so I'll just copy the ones that apply here:

1. Links mainly intended to promote a website.
   • It would appear that one anonymous user showing up and providing three links to Pure Community Ministries is going exactly that. You're probably not involved in promoting the website, but your restoration of the links nevertheless has that effect.
2. Links to sites that primarily exist to sell products or services. For example, instead of linking to a commercial bookstore site, use the "ISBN" linking format, giving readers an opportunity to search a wide variety of free and non-free book sources.
   • All the sites added are only two clicks away from Pure Community Ministries' online book store.
3. Links to sites that require payment or registration to view the relevant content.
   • These sites do require registration and email address harvesting for participation.
4. Links to social networking sites (such as MySpace), discussion forums or USENET.
   • These sites are discussion forums. That's pretty specific.

So I'm taking the links down. There may be problems with the other external links, but these definitely have to go. — coelacan — 19:39, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Added Some Science Links, Commentia on NPOV

I mostly just go around finding cites, but some of you who want a more neutral tone may wish to rewrite sections of the cite and link to the WebMD article I've added, which offers opinions on both sides of this.

I found the page by hitting 'random' until I found a page that needed citation fixing (that's what I do late at night). I probably won't be back anytime soon. That said, I'll note from personal experience, I am very pro-porn, I've been a phone sex girl, and I've seen an ex go through a paraphilia issue that could only be described as pornography addiction. While many of the people fighting against it are, to be honest, complete loons with serious agendas, don't assume that if the article is mostly 'well, porn addiction is bad' cites that that means that the POV isn't N. People who study it in scientific, peer reviewed places need to actually come up with real examples of it and the impact. If they look around a lot, and the result is 'Hey. It's not affecting people's lives at all.' then there's nothing for them to study. - Thespian 06:29, 22 March 2007 (UTC)