Talk:NoFap/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

side box

It is way too big. please put it back to normal size --JumpLike23 (talk) 22:49, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

This article needs a lot of work

I'd never heard of nofap until today and was intrigued so came to the first place you do when reading up on something you don't know about and find an article that reads like random short form sentences squished together into paragraphs. 121.222.136.20 (talk) 05:25, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

WP:SOFIXIT --JumpLike23 (talk) 05:37, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

History of how this article got started

Here's a history of how this article began, in case anyone cares. Feel free to edit my words.

In February '14, someone created the first NoFap article. It read, in full:

   NoFap is an anti-[[pornography]] and [[masturbation]]-[[abstinence]]
   movement on [[Reddit]].com(in the subreddit /r/NoFap ). As of
   2/4/2014 there are 92.929 members.
   <gallery>
   <gallery>
   File:Example.jpg|Caption1
   File:Example.jpg|Caption2
   </gallery>
   </gallery>
   The reasons for starting are varied, but most want to have more
   fulfilling sex lives.
   == See also ==
   {{Portal|Sexuality}}
   * [[Asexuality]]
   * [[Abstinence, be faithful, use a condom]]

User:StephenBuxton deleted it[1] via A7, and rightfully so. (I thank User:Samwalton9 for providing me with a copy of the deleted article.)

In May '15, someone wrote two well-referenced sentences about NoFap,[2] saved them as Pornography addiction § NoFap, and added an {{Expand section}} tag.

In June '15, User:Jumplike23 copied[3] those sentences into his/her sandbox, gradually expanded them into a real article, and moved the article into mainspace.

The collaboration has continued ever since.

TealHill (talk) 04:29, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

"This is a historical claim, not a medical one so MEDRS doesn't apply"

User:Sizeofint, based on the discussion at Talk:Masturbation#MEDRS, it seems even mentioning the study and its claim is contentious.

• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=NoFap&type=revision&diff=759350919&oldid=759246369

I don't have a major stake in the matter but I wanted to point out that there's some ongoing controversy here. Arided (talk) 20:54, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, I saw your post over at WT:MED so I took a look here. Sizeofint (talk) 20:59, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

Not supported by source

In the "founding" section, there was the content:

Some NoFappers claimed to have adopted a NoFap approach after reporting a masturbation addiction.

References

I found that source and "nofap" is mentioned once, in the following paragraph:

Selbsthilfeangebote im Internet Unter­stützung können Selbsthilfeangebote im Internet bieten, die unter den Stichworten „Rebooting“ (= das System ohne Pornokonsum neu starten) oder „NoFap“ (Fap = Internetslang für Masturbation mit Pornokonsum) zu finden sind. Sie unterscheiden sich von klassischen Selbsthilfegruppen durch den weitgehenden Verzicht auf moralische Wertungen und haben keinen spirituell-religiösen Überbau.

Google translate:

Self-help offers on the Internet Support can offer self-help offers on the Internet, which can be found under the key words "Rebooting" (= restart the system without porn consumption) or "NoFap" (Fap = Internet slang for masturbation with porn consumption). They differ from classical self-help groups by largely avoiding moral evaluations and have no spiritual-religious superstructure.

That is the only "fap" mention. The content is not supported. Jytdog (talk) 23:10, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

Comment

NoFap cannot be accurately described as a subreddit at this point. In a TEDX talk by one of NoFap's developers (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M9pPgIraoOM), it was stated that NoFap.com is growing more quickly. Their website states "NoFap® is a comprehensive community-based porn recovery website. We offer all the tools our users need to connect with a supportive community of individuals determined to quit porn use and free themselves from compulsive sexual behaviors. With our website, forums, articles and apps, NoFap helps our users overcome their sexual addictions so they can heal from porn-induced sexual dysfunctions, improve their relationships, and ultimately live their most fulfilling lives." (http://www.nofap.com/about).

Can somebody upload the logo file under fair use? http://www.nofap.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/12/nofap-logo31.png

Ari-Juliano212 (talk) 14:59, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

Find a reliable source that says that. We don't cite youtube on wikiUser talk:jumplike23 19:51, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

There are plenty of sources saying that NoFap.com was created by the same people behind the NoFap subreddit and it now serves as the official homepage of NoFap. NoFap has their website (nofap.com), the subreddit (reddit.com/r/nofap), apps (https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=org.nofap.emergency), a Twitter page, Facebook page, etc. As it has like 60k users on nofap.com it cannot be characterized as a subreddit at this point. They also have the "Academy" which has programs for porn addicts including mentoring groups (nofap.com/about). It even says that the home of NoFap is NoFap.com on the NoFap subreddit's wiki page which is linked at the bottom of the article.

A few articles that mention NoFap.com: http://www.modernluxury.com/san-francisco/story/the-men-who-would-not-wank "Its users have more than tripled in number in the past two years, leading Rhodes to build an off-Reddit forum at nofap.com" http://www.reddit.com/r/NoFap/wiki/index: "If this is your first time visiting, we suggest you read this page entirely and browse through the information on our website." ... "Also, many Fapstronauts have migrated over to the NoFap forums with the goal of avoiding reddit altogether, since porn is so easily accessible here." ... " NoFap.com - The official NoFap website" http://www.salon.com/2014/03/13/9_hilarious_ways_the_religious_right_tried_to_eradicate_masturbation/ "quickly grew into NoFap.com, a place for porn and masturbation addicts to meet..." http://national.deseretnews.com/article/802/adolescent-addiction-when-pornography-strikes-early.html Ari-Juliano212 (talk) 20:26, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

Add them using the cite template. I still think based on reliable sources it is unclear who is the official NoFap community, so we should avoid that language.User talk:jumplike23 20:37, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

Understand what you are saying. I mean, they're both run by the same team (both the site and subreddit say that).The subreddit points to the social media pages and website... which all in turn point to each other. So they're all "official" I suppose? You're right, maybe best to avoid that language. But from my understanding they do have a company and registered trademarks for "NOFAP", have published several apps, run recovery programs, etc. So I think it started out as a subreddit and then kind of evolved into something else. I see it as more accurately to consider the main homepage a stand-alone site rather than a social media site. For example, would we cite NoFap's Twitter page (https://twitter.com/nofap) as the "URL" of the entire website, even if it started out as a Twitter page at first and then registered a trademark, founded a company, and registered a standalone domain name shortly after? This page seems useful too for describing the website, but not sure if we can link a non-news article: http://www.nofap.com/about/ Ari-Juliano212 (talk) 20:43, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

I added a lot of your content. I think we cover nofap.com well now. We should cite direct sources sparingly. Wiki lets other people decide what you are.User talk:jumplike23 21:04, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

History nofap.com:

• Created 2009-10-01 for "Novi's Fully Automated Player - An Aion Bot". Last time archived on 2012-12-11. Then 6 months no archive.
• 2013-06-16 - 2013-10-13 Teaser for comming NoFap-Community with
  • Subscribing for Newsletter for News & Beta-App
  • Store and "What is NoFap" goes to http://nofap.bigcartel.com
• 2014-01-05 & 2014-05-17 redirect to http://www.xxxchurch.com
• 2014-12-18 beginning of actual NoFap-Community

--Franz (Fg68at) de:Talk 19:39, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

Say what "Fap" means

Say what "Fap" means. Jidanni (talk) 23:19, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

@Jidanni: I thought so, too. Should I put it in the lede or the "Founding" section?

Actually, never mind. I placed the etymology for "fap" in the lede so as not to dissuade readers from pertinent facts. matieszyn (talk) 13:50, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

People not knowing what fapping is would never find this site, so the explanation is redundant and futile. --94.218.183.95 (talk) 10:29, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

Parity

According to WP:PARITY, Wikipedia does not discuss WP:FRINGE stuff without saying that it is fringe in big shinny letters. See also WP:LUNATICS. So, when most WP:RS discuss NoFap with either scepticism or scorn, Wikipedia has to reflect that. So, it is a big WP:NPOV problem if we leave out the information that at the present moment NoFap is not supported by mainstream science. And... superpowers? Isn't that like kids willing to be bitten by irradiated spiders in order to get the powers of Spider-Man? Tgeorgescu (talk) 14:21, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

Sounds reasonable. What did have in mind, any comparable example articles? Jonpatterns (talk) 16:27, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

I mean there are already quoted WP:FRIND sources, which establish WP:N for the article. Some of them either deride NoFap or are skeptical in respect to it. Tgeorgescu (talk) 18:41, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

There is the reception part of the article. What additional alterations do you suggest to be comply with wp-parity? Jonpatterns (talk) 19:26, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

I was not suggesting change, I was suggesting conservation, since an IP had removed the scientific consensus part. I don't know if my solution is the best one, but it is certainly better to have a mention of the mainstream view rather than silencing mainstream science. Tgeorgescu (talk) 19:48, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

I've found the diff now. I support the inclusion of this section on the medical professions response. Jonpatterns (talk) 21:50, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

Behav Sci (Basel)

It is not WP:MEDRS-compliant: it is not indexed for MEDLINE, and belongs to the predatory journals outlet MDPI. This means that Park, Brian. "Is Internet Pornography Causing Sexual Dysfunctions? A Review with Clinical Reports". is a bogus source and should not be cited inside Wikipedia for medical claims. Tgeorgescu (talk) 23:26, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

Nonsense, you can't claim it's from a "predatory source" for no reason. Im putting that back into the page.

Scott— Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.156.235.242 (talk • contribs)

Our house, our rules is a blunt way of saying that the Wikipedia community has a set of norms that govern how the encyclopedia is built: norms about what kind of sources we use, about how we handle conflict, and so on. Those norms include not using self-published internet sources, not making blanket statements about ethnic groups (Jews, in this case) without support, not editing against the consensus of editors, and so on. You may consider discussion of those norms as "off-topic," but the Wikipedia community tends to think they are important. Wikipedia articles aren't "owned" by individuals, but they are "owned," in a sense, by the Wikimedia community and the consensus of editors. When an editor, like yourself, decides they want an article to go in a direction other than what the majority of editors want to do, the majority of editors typically preserve their preferred version. Adding material to an article, and then having other editors take that material out, is part of the normal editing process. It's not "force" and it's not "vandalism." It happens to all of us. I'm pretty sure that none of us have our edits here accepted by the community 100% of the time. Learning to abide by Wikipedia's communal decisions is an important part of getting along here as an editor. And if you don't want your editing to be limited by the Wikipedia community's particular goals and methods and decisions, the good news is that there's plenty of other outlets for your work, like perhaps Conservapedia, or getting a personal blog. At the end of the day, Wikipedia really is the private project of the Wikimedia Foundation. It is, roughly, a service that provides summaries of the contents of mainstream scholarship, in the specific sense that "mainstream scholarship" has here at Wikipedia. It's really not an experiment in treating all views equally, and if you think it is, you're likely to wind up frustrated. Alephb (talk) 12:16, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

I have quoted what another editor stated in another context, but it is recommended to learn from what he stated. For the reliability of MDPI see the archive of WP:RSN. Also, Wikipedians take WP:MEDRS very seriously and violating it has serious consequences for one's editing. If you mean "porn is addictive", the jury is still out on this, there is no way to know it yet, so we have to wait until it becomes accepted as mainstream science, see WP:BALL. That we have to wait is not a whim of mine, used as delay tactics, it is emphatically what WP:PAGs dictate. According to WP:CIR, if you fail to understand the poorness of your sources (one is not a review and the other is from Behav Sci), you cannot be a good Wikipedia editor and your edits will get knee-jerk rejected without you understanding why they get rejected. This is by the way friendly advice, even if it might sound as criticism. Wikilawyering won't got your sources accepted, and every experienced editor will tell you the same. In that sense, Wikipedia editors are a hive mind. You should not start battles which you lose by default. Tgeorgescu (talk) 02:08, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

I am truly honored that my comments from another talk page a while back are being used to help guide the Wikipedia community as it considers the important topic of fapping. Alephb (talk) 00:05, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

@Alephb: I used that quote in many places, when editors don't get that they have to obey WP:RULES. Tgeorgescu (talk) 00:23, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

appreciate the implicit compliment. I'd stumbled on you doing it on two different talk pages, and decided to run a search and see how far this thing goes. Imagine my amusement when this page appeared! Alephb (talk) 00:24, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

Scientific reception of NoFap

Perhaps not a WP:RS, yet a honest evaluation of NoFap: http://www.drjasonwinters.com/blogs/psychology-of-sexuality/2013/01/10/thursday-mail-january-10/#comments= (search for: and nofap are founded on the views of two people who are considered pariahs). Tgeorgescu (talk) 08:45, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

Archived at https://web.archive.org/web/20180302144855/http://www.drjasonwinters.com/blogs/psychology-of-sexuality/2013/01/10/thursday-mail-january-10/ Tgeorgescu (talk) 05:20, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

Defamation suit

FYI: https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/ywa97m/nofap-founder-suing-a-neuroscientist-no-nut-november

--Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:55, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

Why are opinions of journalists included in reception?

They are no authority on the subject and are there just to inflate that section.

--Caligula369 (talk) 22:30, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

Why not? Mainstream media coverage of a subject is always worth noting, whether the journalists are experts on the subject or not. Robofish (talk) 13:14, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

@Caligula369: If you remove WP:FRIND sources from the article, it will have to be deleted per WP:N. Tgeorgescu (talk) 13:58, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

Comparison to pornfree

@Susmuffin: The reference makes a direct comparison between /r/nofap and /r/pornfree. I've added another reference that compares the two. Jonpatterns (talk) 16:15, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

Pseudoscience category

According to WP:PARITY, Wikipedia does not discuss WP:FRINGE stuff without saying that it is fringe in big shinny letters. See also WP:LUNATICS. So, when most WP:RS discuss NoFap with either scepticism or scorn, Wikipedia has to reflect that. So, it is a big WP:NPOV problem if we leave out the information that at the present moment NoFap is not supported by mainstream science. And... superpowers? Isn't that like kids willing to be bitten by irradiated spiders in order to get the powers of Spider-Man? Tgeorgescu (talk) 14:21, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

Quoting myself. According to WP:PSCI we have to label it as pseudoscience. Local WP:CONSENSUS cannot override site-wide policy.

TL;DR VERSION YBOP, TGPE, and nofap are founded on the views of two people who are considered pariahs within the sex and relationship research and clinical communities. They present themselves as experts but aren’t. There’s no empirical research evidence to support any of the claims made by YBOP and TGPE. All the claims about negative effects of internet porn use can be better accounted for by other explanations. Watching internet porn (hopefully ethically produced!) and masturbating are not problematic for the vast majority of people. And for those people who do have a problem with internet porn, it’s almost always a sign of some other underlying problem (shame, anxiety, fear of rejection, relationship problems, boredom, low self-esteem, lack of good sex education, etc.). Addressing those underlying problems should be people’s focus, not abstaining from masturbation to internet porn. Quitting internet porn and masturbating is not the magic bullet to an improved life.

— Dr. Jason Winters

Quoted by Tgeorgescu (talk) 04:06, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

Do you think the mention of the pseudoscientific character of the movement's beliefs should not be added to the introduction section? IMO, it's quite fundamental to the cult's very existence. The critique later in the article is a bit marred with the ideological neoliberal agenda (multiple quotations either include the word "sad" (favourited by the LGBT) or talk about misogyny). I believe, a short clear summation of the objectively anti-scientific convictions would be helpful and unbiased.--Adûnâi (talk) 03:32, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

@Adûnâi: Whatever we write inside Wikipedia articles has to be WP:Verifiable in WP:RS. ... and, according to Project Know, almost 50% of NoFappers never had sex. Are these people supposed to refrain from masturbation? Do they get a girlfriend allotted in the process, or should they behave for the rest of their life as if they were castrated? Is this some sort of sadistic joke? Because Let's behave as eunuchs and we'll get superpowers is a sadistic joke. Tgeorgescu (talk) 04:47, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I fail to follow your point. How is their effective "incel" (?) status relevant? All I'm suggesting is underlying the pseudoscientific nature of their fundamental beliefs in the article lead - because later on, the more detailed quotations might mar the issue with bias. (And however relevant it is - I oppose nofap without being a supporter of LGBT rights, a really weird combination, I admit, because in America, if you're against nofap, you must be a liberal, the same with atheism positively correlating with LGBT.)

If you need examples - "I do think their ideas are simplistic, naive and promote a sad, reductionistic and distorted view of male sexuality and masculinity" by David J. Ley who seems to be a vitriolic liberal from his quotations, and I again posit that it might draw the attention of the reader away from the legitimate, ideology-free critique of the soundness of the fundamentals of nofap beliefs.--Adûnâi (talk) 07:13, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

Yup, Wikipedia serves an ideology, but it isn't liberalism or conservatism, it is the academic mainstream, see WP:ABIAS and WP:MAINSTREAM. From the conservative side, James Dobson does not condemn masturbation, but he is anti-porn. Tgeorgescu (talk) 20:29, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

This segment is confusing, reword?

"but also radical feminist critiques of pornography, as well as suggesting that members of NoFap frequently utilized and redeployed familiar hegemonic masculine discourses (e.g. men as dominant seekers of pleasure and women as the ‘natural’ suppliers of this pleasure), in turn reproducing common sense sexual expectations of gendered dominance and submission"

Specifically "common sense sexual expectations of gendered dominance and submission". Adding an example to this section would be beneficial i believe. --Disoff (talk) 16:41, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

Removal of the mention of the Prause defamation case

Due to WP:BLPCRIME, I removed the content. It's an unresolved court case that is only minorly reported on in the Vice article, and probably not likely to be reported on in the future on it's own. I also believe that including it would give undue weight to that issue in relation to the subject of this article. Vermont (talk) 02:30, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

Pinging Grayfell. Vermont (talk) 02:33, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

Edit war

According to WP:CITELEAD the information from the lead does not need to be WP:CITED, since it is cited inside the body of the article. Tgeorgescu (talk) 14:33, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

New Zimmer study data removal

Statements citing Zimmer and Imhoff (2020) are a peer-reviewed study. Please provide a reason if you wish to remove references to published science Etta0xtkpiq45ulaey2 (talk) 18:37, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

Canvassing

NoFap has just begun off-wiki canvassing against this page:

Reddit

Twitter

I'm even one of the three accounts named on Twitter as "Entities with ties to the porn industry & biased porn advocates". ROFL! Crossroads ^-talk- 06:53, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

Resolving reception section

Moved to "request edit"

References

It looks like you have a well cited draft here. I don’t know whether you want to add it to the article but it would be an enrichment. Trymianc (talk) 21:08, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

I incorporated everything that was in the criticism (now "recpeption") section, except the last two sentences that seemed irrelevant. I added some content and citations. I think this should replace that section to give us a clean structure moving forward. For example, any additions it would now be clear which paragraph (journalist, therapist, NoFap science, or belief science) additions would belong. It really has heavy overlap with the content, just reorganized to not be a list of random citations. Anemicdonalda (talk) 21:15, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

Added as a "request" now, but remain open to feedback. Anemicdonalda (talk) 21:20, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

Misleading article about nofap

I strongly disagree about linking the article with https://reason.com/2015/03/18/study-says-porn-isnt-making-men-impotent/#.c4asnx:FoM. It is Neuroscientists Challenge Myths About Men and Porn. There has been scientiic studies that countract on what Elizabeth Brown article states.

If you put that article, then why don't you put studies that counteract it such as Young men who prefer pornography to real-world sexual encounters might find themselves caught in a trap, unable to perform sexually with other people when the opportunity presents itself, a new study reports.

Porn-addicted men are more likely to suffer from erectile dysfunction and are less likely to be satisfied with sexual intercourse, according to survey findings presented at the recent American Urological Association's annual meeting in Boston.https://www.chicagotribune.com/lifestyles/health/sc-porn-linked-to-sexual-dysfunction-health-0531-20170516-story.html

Or how about a recent German study on that topicA new German study in JAMA Psychiatry found men who watch an excessive amount of pornography tend to have less volume and brain activity in regions linked to reward and motivation. Their data also showed porn addiction weakened the area of the brain associated with behavior and decision making.

“We found that the volume of the so-called striatum, a brain region that has been associated with reward processing and motivated behavior was smaller the more pornography consumption the participants reported,” said Simone Kühn, the study’s lead author.

One of the most disturbing effects of porn addiction is porn-induced erectile dysfunction, or PIED. This form of erectile dysfunction prevents men from engaging in ordinary sexual relations.https://www.rehabs.com/blog/porn-can-alter-brain-and-cause-impotence-study-shows/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Stuey1999 (talk • contribs) 12:40, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

Correlation does not imply causation. Tgeorgescu (talk) 21:03, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

I'm not a pro-NoFap guy, but that's a bad criticism. Both the Elizabeth Brown article and the pro-NoFap articles rely on survey studies, which only analyze correlations. An article that has an experimental study (i.e. one that has a control group (people who fap to porn) and an experimental group (people who don't fap to porn)) would have a more compelling conclusion. Prof. Fu (talk) 21:39, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

@Prof. Fu: Correlation does not imply causation, but it might falsify causation. That's the difference. Tgeorgescu (talk) 21:41, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

Porn industries/supporters in the wrong place

Now y’all want to come in here and add false info about the NoFap community. I guess they only care about money and not about the well being of others Dyldyl9 (talk) 20:23, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

Wrong, we only care about peer-reviewed evidence, i.e. those sources which pass WP:MEDRS. Also WP:FRIND sources are used for pseudoscience topics. Tgeorgescu (talk) 21:08, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

Ditto, zero porn support for me either, and extremely annoyed the founder is asking you to vandalize the wiki and you did it. I fully support locking this down from open vandalism by for-profit NoFap. Anemicdonalda (talk) 21:12, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

The only ones vandalizing and ruining the article is you guys. Putting a bunch of biased nonsense and the “sources” y’all put don’t even justify the words. Dyldyl9 (talk) 21:49, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

@Dyldyl9: Oh, dear, dear... we kowtow to mainstream science, that's what Wikipedia is. Tgeorgescu (talk) 21:51, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

If you say so buddy Dyldyl9 (talk) 23:27, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

@Dyldyl9:

Dispute resolution won't do any good. The feedback you've gotten so far is the exact same kind of feedback that you would get in Wikipedia's dispute resolution systems. To simplify it somewhat, Wikipedia reflects the kind of scholarship that you find at leading secular universities, such as those mentioned at WP:CHOPSY: the kinds of things you would find taught at Cambridge, Harvard, Princeton, the Sorbonne, and/or Yale. If a view is considered fringe in those kinds of circles, you can bet that it will be considered fringe at Wikipedia. Now, that may not seem fair, especially if you believe the CHOPSY outlook is wrong. But that is the way Wikipedia has been since its inception, and it would be very unlikely if you could talk the Wikipedia community out of the approach that they've used since the beginning. ... Alephb (talk) 00:10, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

Quoted by Tgeorgescu (talk) 23:42, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 10 April 2020

Re-organize the response section as:

Several journalists have criticized NoFap after having participated in its programs.Specifically, some journalists reported that the forums were filled with misogyny, including "there is a darker side to NoFap. Among the reams of Reddit discussions and YouTube videos, a fundamentally misogynistic rhetoric regularly emerges", "the NoFap community has become linked to wider sexism and misogyny, reducing women to sexual objects to be attained or abstained from and shaming sexually active women," and "The benefits, however, of hanging around that social circle to trash women as fuck objects and talk other dudes into wrongly believing that masturbation is unhealthy… are pretty much nil".

Therapists have also been critical of NoFap. Both the American Psychiatric Association and the World Health Organization rejected "pornography addiction" as a diagnosis. Therapist Robert Weiss for The Huffington Post sees NoFap as part of a tech backlash. The endeavor has also been criticized as generating embarrassing side effects such as prolonged or unwanted erections in men or an excessive libido. Psychologist Dr. David J. Ley wrote: "I'm not in opposition to them, but I do think their ideas are simplistic, naive and promote a sad, reductionistic and distorted view of male sexuality and masculinity". Ley criticizes NoFap supporters as amateurs who are using "bad data" and "extrapolations on weak science to argue that porn has a disproportionate effect on the brain" and claim that porn use causes erectile dysfunction. Ley has stated that the website is a continuation of the anti-masturbation movements from the past, such as Swiss doctor Samuel Tissot's 18th-century claims that masturbation was an illness that "weakened the male spirit" and led to immorality; American doctor Benjamin Rush, who claimed that masturbation caused blindness; and W.K. Kellogg, who developed corn flakes as part of his anti-masturbation efforts.

Two peer-reviewed studies of the NoFap forums exist. While claiming to be science-based, a 2020 study found that the more that NoFap followers believed that they should abstain from masturbation, the more they also reported "lower trust in science". Anti-masturbation belief has been widely criticized by scientists for decades, as primarily positive effects result from masturbation. Social psychologists Taylor and Jackson, who analyzed the content of NoFap forums, concluded in their study that some NoFap participants not only rejected pornography, but also radical feminist critiques of pornography. They also stated that members of NoFap frequently utilized and redeployed familiar hegemonic masculine discourses (e.g. men as dominant seekers of pleasure and women as the ‘natural’ suppliers of this pleasure), in turn reproducing societal expectations of gendered sexual dominance and submission.

Many scientific studies appear to have debunked the core claims of NoFap communities. According to Elizabeth Brown, neuroscientists have questioned some of the claims made by people on NoFap. Many studies contradict the NoFap belief that pornography use and erectile dysfunction were causally linked. Also, many studies contradict the NoFap belief that abstinence from masturbation increases testoterone. For example, more masturbation is associated with higher testosterone levels and testosterone increases immediately with orgasm.

Anemicdonalda (talk) 21:19, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

Seems like an improvement to me, but I'd tweak some things further. Will say more and possibly implement it later. Crossroads ^-talk- 21:38, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

• To facilitate making this change, and to make it easier to evaluate, I have fixed some of the minor WP:MOS issues. For future reference, punctuation goes before ref tags, not after, and not in between. These are minor nitpicks, obviously, but fixing this makes it slightly easier to evaluate more substantial changes like this one. Grayfell (talk) 21:48, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

I've added it, and done some more sorting and tweaks. I've given the reasons in the edit summaries. Anyone is welcome to give feedback. Crossroads ^-talk- 00:04, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

References

Semi-protected edit request on 11 April 2020

In the opening paragraph re-write the section, " that are not supported by mainstream medicine.[4] The group's views and efforts to combat pornography addiction have been criticized as simplistic, outdated, and incorrect by neuroscientists, psychologists, and other medical professionals.[4][5] "

It is clearly attempting to sway readers opinions on this topic instead of informing them. It includes good information that just needs to be written in a more objective manner. CoolNorte (talk) 02:51, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Grayfell (talk) 04:39, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

@CoolNorte: Read WP:SPOV. It isn't policy but it gives you a good idea of where Wikipedia stands in respect to science. Tgeorgescu (talk) 11:19, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

Possible WP:CONFLICT

He/she has replied at [4] with:

I don't have any relationship with the NoFap organisation other than my name so please stop spamming my talk page with nonsense. On the other hand you seem like someone who has conflict of interestNoFapeditor (talk) 01:55, 14 April 2020 (UTC)— NoFapeditor (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Quoted by Tgeorgescu (talk) 02:08, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

You have been spamming my talk page with nonsense trying to intimidate me

Please provide evidence at WP:COIN or back off from this discussion. Tgeorgescu (talk) 01:59, 14 April 2020 (UTC)— NoFapeditor

NoFapeditor (talk) 02:21, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

Yes, I did say that, because when you accuse somebody of having a WP:CONFLICT you need to have evidence and present it openly for everyone to see. In fact I did not even accuse you of having a WP:CONFLICT, but instead invited you to reply to the suspicion some of us have due to the obvious correlation between your username and the name of this organization. Also, it is rather unwise for you to deny that you are a WP:SPA, as you did at [5]. Tgeorgescu (talk) 02:27, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

I'm new to wikipedia and due to finding sources for this page I didn't have time to concentrate and engage in other topics so I DO DENY these attacks. I did respond to your alegations as you have zero evidence about my conflict of interest. It was used in a way to intimidate me (as a tool) NoFapeditor (talk) 02:33, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

Regarding possible bias on this page

Including the following sentence to describe NoFap is a biased way to present the movement: "The group's views and efforts to combat pornography addiction have been criticized as simplistic, outdated, and incorrect by neuroscientists, psychologists, and other medical professionals.".

While they were criticized, they were also praised by other professionals in the same fields. Example: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5039517/
Here's a question for you: Would it be any different if the sentence read: "The group's views and efforts to combat pornography addiction have praised by neuroscientists, psychologists, and other medical professionals." ?
It would have been also a factually correct way to describe the movement, but the same people that are fine with the former sentence would deem the latter to be biased. I do agree that this field will have to be researched more thoroughly as it is a new phenomenom, but the fact that it is included in the "pseudoscience" category implies a clear bias.

The movement is a support group for people that have problems with their pornographic use and masturbation habits. And even if it is not clasified as an addiction, the general scientific community does agree that there can be cases where pornographic use and masturbation habits interfere with the quality of someones life. Or do you argue that pornographic use and obsessive masturbation NEVER interferes with someones life? That there is not a single person on this planet that would benefit from changing their habits? The notion that some abnormal masturbation practices can cause harm even by the critics of NoFap as shown by the following excerpt "It is considered abnormal only when it inhibits partner-oriented behavior, is done in public, or is sufficiently compulsive to cause distress."
Note: The criticism is expanded upon in the "Reception" part of the article, that is suffient. NoFapeditor (talk) 01:32, 14 April 2020 (UTC)— NoFapeditor (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

ROFLMAO, MDPI is a predatory publisher. As I have stated at WP:FTN:

Yup, the problem isn't combating porn addiction. The problem is that random guys self-diagnose with porn addiction based on shallow evidence or religious prejudices. Or they fell prey to therapists who told them that vampire pornography is going to turn them into the next Ted Bundy. Tgeorgescu (talk) 22:17, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

Technically, you have violated WP:PROFRINGE by giving equal validity to WP:FRINGE/PS and WP:MAINSTREAM science. Tgeorgescu (talk) 01:40, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

Based on what FACTS did you reach the conclusion that MDPI is a predatory publisher? I guess on the basis of dissagreeing with you. You just can't target a specific group because they have different opinions.

The edits were backed by a second source as well, not only from MDPI.NoFapeditor (talk) 01:51, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Search?search=mdpi&prefix=Wikipedia%3AReliable+sources%2FNoticeboard&fulltext=Search&fulltext=Search&ns0=1&ns1=1&ns2=1&ns3=1&ns4=1&ns5=1&ns6=1&ns7=1&ns8=1&ns9=1&ns10=1&ns11=1&ns12=1&ns13=1&ns14=1&ns15=1&ns100=1&ns101=1&ns108=1&ns109=1&ns118=1&ns119=1&ns446=1&ns447=1&ns710=1&ns711=1&ns828=1&ns829=1&ns2300=1&ns2301=1&ns2302=1&ns2303=1 Tgeorgescu (talk) 01:52, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

The edits were backed by a second source as well.NoFapeditor (talk) 02:00, 14 April 2020 (UTC)— NoFapeditor (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

We do not cater to WP:FRINGE POVs. Tgeorgescu (talk) 02:02, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

I explained my edits and there is no WP:FRINGE involved. How is changing the sentence in the way I did catering to fringe POV? Your edits are not even supported by the critics themselves. NoFapeditor (talk) 02:08, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

• Yeah, this is a fringe position and a fringe source, but it's not even a relevant fringe source. Again, the article must be based on reliable sources which are specifically about NoFap as a topic. MDPI is, at best, borderline, but as I just explained above, we need to use sources which meet WP:MEDRS, WP:FRINGE, and also, we need sources which are about "NoFap". This source appears to fail on all three counts. Grayfell (talk) 02:10, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

Yup, the judgment of NoFapeditor isn't binding. [6] is binding. Tgeorgescu (talk) 02:12, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

That article was recommended for retraction by the Committee on Publication Ethics, covered by Retraction Watch as a fraudulent article. https://retractionwatch.com/2018/06/13/journal-corrects-but-will-not-retract-controversial-paper-on-internet-porn/ The authors ditched the activist author and republished that, actually, " There was no association between the International Index of Erectile Function and craving for, or obsessive passion for, pornography. No correlation was found between any variables and female sexual dysfunction." https://academic.oup.com/milmed/advance-article-abstract/doi/10.1093/milmed/usz079/5477443 Thus, the article cited was already debunked...by its own authors. Anemicdonalda (talk) 03:15, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

Wow. Even setting aside the WP:RGW brigading, this is turning out to be even stranger, and fringier, than I thought it was. Grayfell (talk) 03:44, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

Yup:

• Reputable publishing house: check (OUP);
• Indexed for MEDLINE: check.

So, as far WP:SCHOLARSHIP is concerned, the first version of the paper wasn't published to the satisfaction of the scientific community (peers), but the second version was. Tgeorgescu (talk) 03:46, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

The deal

OK, POV-pushers, the deal is this: you have to convince mainstream science and Wikipedia will follow suit. So, you have to convince Cambridge, Harvard, Oxford, Princeton, Sorbonne, and Yale before you can declare victory at this article and the porn addiction article. Once porn addiction gets into DSM-6 or DSM-7, there will be no turning back for Wikipedia. But according to WP:BALL we aren't there yet, so you have to have patience (if it will ever happen). Tgeorgescu (talk) 08:05, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

Personally, I subscribe to Krueger's view: while a small minority could become compulsive users of pornography, the vast majority will further consume pornography with no nefarious side effects whatsoever. Tgeorgescu (talk) 21:45, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

Quoted myself. Tgeorgescu (talk) 20:17, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 13 April 2020

I suggest deleting this recent addition from the introduction:

"...proponents point to studies correlating masturbation with poor mental and physical health indicators, such as immature psychological defense mechanisms, increased risk of prostate cancer, and impaired sexual function in men."

All of the studies cited used secondary data analysis (ie., data digging, not preplanned), an extremely very weak scientific approach. There are three additional reasons I suggest removal:

1. First, every one of these studies failed to replicate by external labs, including a previous co-author denouncing what he did with her data, and culminated in an entire issue of a journal dismissing his claims:

https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/14681994.2012.697144

https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/14681994.2012.732261

https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/14681994.2012.732262

2. Second, the same author of those studies, Brody, is best known for his series of highly disputed publications denying that sex can transmit HIV (yes, seriously). He claims it is a public health conspiracy:

https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1258/0956462041211216

https://sti.bmj.com/content/78/6/467.1

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1140948/

3. Finally, the overwhelming evidence and position of every scientific body (see below) is that masturbation is not harmful, and is usually helpful. To present masturbation in the opening paragraph as indicative of "immature" psychology, etc. will give the fraudulent impression that this is accepted science. I remain unaware of any scientific body that takes such a position on masturbation.

Anemicdonalda (talk) 05:07, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

 Done Wow.

In addition to the many WP:FRINGE and WP:MEDRS issues you have raised, these sources are not about NoFap. I know this even without looking at thtme, because they predate the term. This article isn't a place to "rally the troops" in support of one position or the other. This is an encyclopedia, so our goal is to provide a summary of the topic. The way we do this is reliable sources about that topic. We do not use tangential source to provide original research, and we do not combine sources to support a position the sources don't directly support.

The purpose of the article is to summarize sources about the topic. The topic of the article is NoFap. Per WP:FRINGE, we should summarize the academic consensus on fringe topics, but beyond this, sources must be primarily about the topic. Not other topics like opposition to masturbation, not the health benefits or determents of masturbation, not compulsive porn use, not whether or not porn compulsion is also addiction, etc.

Please use reliable source about the topic to build the body of the article, and then summarize that information in the lead. Grayfell (talk) 06:40, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

Thank you Anemicdonalda for your detailed analysis, and Grayfell for explaining it so well. I endorse the revert. Crossroads ^-talk- 15:52, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

Yup, I agree. AIDS denialism websites love Brody. Tgeorgescu (talk) 21:11, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

To be clear, I'm not vouching for Brody. I don't know him beyond what I cited. I definitely disagree with him about HIV if that's his position. So I'm all for leaving him out.

Mainly I'm concerned with the tone of the article. As it stands, "Reception" is mostly devoted to affirming that masturbation is healthy. That may or may not be true, but I see two issues:

1. It's off topic. Grayfell pointed this out with regard to my edit, and the same applies here. My edit was actually in reaction to this. The first paragraph of "Reception" includes a forty-year-old statement from the American Medical Association that has no more to do with NoFap than my sources did. There are a number of others in the same vein.

2. If it is considered on topic, there should be room for dissenting studies as well. NPOV guidelines on fringe theories makes allowance for this so long as they aren't given "undue weight." Certainly it would help explain part of the draw.

One of the studies I cited (through Brody) is "Sexual activity and prostate cancer risk in men diagnosed at a younger age" in BJU International. The authors found that "frequent masturbation activity was a marker for increased risk in the 20s and 30s." I think that and a couple others would help round out the article, even if we need to include caveats.

At the moment, the closest thing we get is a passing reference to the study Rhodes discovered showing that abstaining from masturbation briefly boosts testosterone. More would be helpful. Even folks who disagree would stand to gain from knowing what's out there, so they can better refute it.

That's if the article does continue to concern itself with the science. Maybe that's the wrong direction since those articles are already out there. Eeskildsen (talk) 02:04, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

See WP:FALSEBALANCE. And as for using sources not about NoFap specifically, this is fine for demonstrating scientific consensus. As WP:FRINGE states, in an article about the minority viewpoint itself, the proper contextual relationship between minority and majority viewpoints must be made clear. Crossroads ^-talk- 02:55, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

References

Removal of studies with dissenting conclusions

To try to give the introduction a more balanced POV, I referenced studies in Archives of Sexual Behavior and The Journal of Sexual Medicine that correlated masturbation with negative health outcomes, including prostate cancer. The references were removed. I plan to add them back because no explanation was given for their removal (beyond a terse "many issues here"), and nothing on this talk page directly pertains to them.

Frankly, if a 1972 declaration by the American Medical Association is cited authoratatively in the article, a much more recent (2010) study in a peer-reviewed journal should be welcomed. Censoring dissenting research makes this article look bad. We certainly need to censor and shun actual pseudoscience (and the NoFap subreddit is brimming with it), but we shouldn't remove references to peer-reviewed studies just because they're contentious, if the research is legitimate.

Eeskildsen (talk) 21:24, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

These sources are insufficient for this content, as is already explained in the section above. Grayfell (talk) 21:57, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

BKmarian1234 (talk) 11:49, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

David Ley , a scientist with 2 i10-index publications in his career

Comparing nofap movement with those guys Benjamin Rush and W.K. Kellogg is malevolent ,there is nothing on the subreddit regarding those guys , I doubt anyone heard of them. How can you cite him saying being not antinofap when he makes such an insult to the community ?— Preceding unsigned BKmarian1234 (talk) 11:54, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

That it is a pseudoscience-based movement isn't exactly a secret. We consequently apply WP:FRIND and WP:PARITY. Ley stated that it isn't a new idea, but it has a history, it is the reiteration of some ideas that have been expressed in the history of medicine. Tgeorgescu (talk) 11:03, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

I see no correlation between blindness , cornflakes and shits , it is pure malevolence , when the main goal of the subforum are male sexual dysfunctions . Still David Ley's view cannot be considered an unbiased , balanced, disinterested viewpoint , his point is not taken from a paper but from a psychologytoday article . He is also a member of a realyourbrainonporn website .

Also there is a difference between a movement who opposes mandatory vaccination which says all vaccines are bad ,cause autism etc etc, and a group of people who opposes mandatory vaccination and say i do not want to take a certain vaccine (the future coronavirus vaccines for example , I want to see the longtime effect ,I doubt findings based solely on those few researcher). What is see here is that you portray nofap subjectively as first example , while the link between porn and ED is still debated .Also saying the subreddit is misogynist because 2 users there are misogynist ,is like saying a whole political party is misogynist because 2 of their members are ...

Also about the [37] article of Nicole Prause . Concluding that there is no porn addiction because of a paper based on a sample of 280 is absurd , with such a low sample you can prove that alcohol and nicotine are not addictive.BKmarian1234 (talk) 11:54, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

The sample is so low because there aren't much funds for sex research. It is a problem of the whole academic field. Also, the point is that its misogynism is overwhelming, not due to a few bad apples. In respect to the existence of porn addiction the jury is still out. So, mainstream medicine does not know if there is porn addiction. Tgeorgescu (talk) 12:00, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

There are currently three peer-reviewed studies cited to support that erectile functioning is not related to pornography viewing. A few that could be added include "There was no association between the International Index of Erectile Function and craving for, or obsessive passion for, pornography. No correlation was found between any variables and female sexual dysfunction." https://academic.oup.com/milmed/advance-article-abstract/doi/10.1093/milmed/usz079/5477443, "Therefore, it is important to note that in general no empirical studies exist that demonstrated a link between pornography consumption and sexual problems." https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1743609515344404, "Although there are clinical accounts and emotionally charged media and self-help sites propagating this belief (e.g., The Doctor Oz Show, January 31, 2013; James & O’Shea, March 30, 2014; yourbrainonporn.com), there are no data to support the notion that pornography viewing causes erectile dysfunction." https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/0092623X.2014.935539, and "Porn viewing in the last six months was not related to sexual problems." https://www.rutgers.nl/feiten-en-cijfers/seksuele-gezondheid-en-gedrag/seksuele-gezondheid-nederland-2017. The Prause study mentioned was a laboratory study, for which 280 is a huge laboratory study. The sample size is determined by power analysis, and they presented the power analysis showing they were well-powered to detect such an effect, had it existed. In summary, the best evidence including laboratory and nationally-representative samples, consistently finds no evidence linking ED and porn viewing, in contradiction to the main claim of NoFap. I am open to drafting this for the "Response" section if these additions are of interest. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Anemicdonalda (talk • contribs)

@Anemicdonalda: Thanks for your help on this article. Per WP:MEDRS, though, we should be using literature review WP:Secondary sources for content about health (i.e. about masturbation and pornography in general, not specifically about NoFap). Some of the existing and recently added sources should thus be replaced. Do you think you could find secondary sources instead? (One of your links just took me to a login page.) Crossroads ^-talk- 03:45, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

@Crossroads:I am not aware of any peer-reviewed meta-analysis on this exact topic. There was a popular article reviewing this recently, but I am not sure Daily Beast is better https://www.thedailybeast.com/porn-didnt-break-your-penis-studies-show-no-physiological-link-between-sex-films-and-erectile-dysfunction Anemicdonalda (talk) 05:02, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

Doesn't have to be a meta-analysis. A peer-reviewed literature review or other secondary academic source would also be good. Crossroads ^-talk- 03:54, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

Some literature reviews suggest that pornographic images and films can be addictive, particularly when combined with masturbation, while others maintain that data remains inconclusive.

Quoted from Effects of pornography. Tgeorgescu (talk) 04:03, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

References

An article about opposition to masturbation as a larger topic

I think the relative lack of sources specifically about NoFap is still a problem, so it's reasonable that we keep discussing sources that don't even mention the specific term. Subreddits tend to have an outsized influence on Wikipedia for obvious reasons, and this seems like another example. I am surprised there isn't an article on opposition to masturbation (or at least, I couldn't find one). This is something with a lot of interesting history behind it. A single article on the topic, where these various fringe beliefs and anti-sex fads could be properly contextualized, would simplify this a lot and allow this one to focus on this one trademarked term and its history. NoFap isn't even the only subreddit about this fad, and some of them are more extreme in their nonsense (yes NoFappers, I know it's a blog and not reliable, that's not the point I'm trying to make). I've expanded Category:opposition to masturbation, but it's still sparse. Are there enough reliable sources about this larger topic to make this worth pursuing? Grayfell (talk) 22:10, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

I think there is no opposition to masturbation article because there is the history of masturbation article. Tgeorgescu (talk) 22:55, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

I support the creation of an opposition to masturbation article. We have an article on the history of erotic depictions and opposition to pornography, so it follows that masturbation deserves the same treatment. Prof. Fu (talk) 03:03, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

I meant that all opposition to masturbation is now listed at history of masturbation. So it could be simply redirected there. Tgeorgescu (talk) 03:53, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

I don't think such an article should be created. Other than the above-mentioned history of masturbation, there isn't going to be much opposition to talk about. Such an article would also be a magnet for fringe content. Even a redirect would be vulnerable to hijacking. I think it should stay a red link. Crossroads ^-talk- 04:07, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

Do you mean fringe content like this article? HiLo48 (talk) 04:27, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

I mean that SPAs and pro-fringe editors would be attracted to such a page and try to add poorly sourced content to push their POV. This article has attracted fringe content, but this article should exist as it is a notable topic. I don't think it has any fringe content now. Crossroads ^-talk- 05:05, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

These are good points. It's not worth creating a vandalism magnet. I maintain that there's potential for an article, and I think the larger topic could be expanded. However, this would need to be handled very cautiously, and for the time spent, and the amount of work to keep it in acceptable shape, I'm not sure if it's a good value. Grayfell (talk) 08:51, 19 April 2020 (UTC)