Revision as of 15:52, 12 April 2023 editSineBot (talk | contribs)Bots2,556,341 editsm Signing comment by Jkw85FLT - "Re-suggesting public research report on NoFap"Tag: Reverted← Previous edit | Revision as of 17:14, 12 April 2023 edit undoTamzin (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Administrators69,483 edits Revert to revision 1149474983 dated 2023-04-12 13:43:32 by Tgeorgescu using popupsTag: Manual revertNext edit → | ||
Line 65: | Line 65: | ||
Anyway, the bigger point is: whoever thinks our article is not supported by or misrepresents mainstream science is wrong. ] (]) 13:43, 12 April 2023 (UTC) | Anyway, the bigger point is: whoever thinks our article is not supported by or misrepresents mainstream science is wrong. ] (]) 13:43, 12 April 2023 (UTC) | ||
== Report should be included ]== | |||
Having reviewed the previous removals, I do not see why these were not included? For example, this appears to be an international research group making an official, public report: | |||
Perliger, A., Stevens, C., & Leidig, E. (2023). Mapping the Ideological Landscape of Extreme Misogyny. International Centre for Counter-Terrorism. | |||
"Commonly known as the “manosphere,” this umbrella network includes a broad spectrum of online communities ranging from Men’s Rights Activists (MRAs), Men Going Their Own Way (MGTOW), Pick Up Artists (PUA), and incels, through to Gamer/geek, TradCon (Traditional Christian conservatives), the father’s rights movement, NoFappers, and chauvinist far-right groups." "We conclude with theoretical and conceptual insights about the dynamics between different misogynist streams, factors that seem to facilitate the emergence of new narratives and ideological groups, and, lastly, the societal and policy implications of extreme misogynist communities." <!-- Template:Unsigned --><small class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 15:51, 12 April 2023 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> |
Revision as of 17:14, 12 April 2023
The contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to pseudoscience and fringe science, which has been designated as a contentious topic. Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Misplaced Pages, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page. |
Text and/or other creative content from this version of NoFap was copied or moved into Gary Wilson (author) with on 7 June 2022. The former page's history now serves to provide attribution for that content in the latter page, and it must not be deleted as long as the latter page exists. |
This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
{{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
{{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
{{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
|
Archives | ||||
|
||||
This page has archives. Sections older than 28 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 4 sections are present. |
Anxiety rather than porn
About Prause's paper that anxiety rather than porn explains the failures attributed by nofappers to "porn addiction": I'm afraid such claim enters WP:MEDRS territory, which requires systematic reviews, preferably indexed for MEDLINE. That's why I chose not to cite Prause's paper. tgeorgescu (talk) 00:14, 23 October 2022 (UTC)
I have cited another paper by Prause, but I'm not interested in her novel claims, which would need WP:MEDRS support. I went for the most conservative conclusion drawn from her study, namely that the medical orthodoxy does not attribute the sufferance of NoFap users to PMO.
The wording can be still tweaked, but if there is anything upon which the medical orthodoxy is in nigh-unanimous agreement, is that the model of "repeated PMO is the cause of mental disorders" is worthless. And nofappers kind of know that, since they posit the most hilarious conspiracy theories about Big Porn paying bribes to medical researchers, same as Big Tobacco did in the past.
By and large, the only medical clinics which earn money from the porn industry are clinics which test porn actors for STDs. Prause, whatever her opinions might be, does not earn money from STDs testing. So, she has no WP:COI in respect to the porn industry. While her POVs are favorable to the porn industry, she is not on the payroll of the porn industry. And there is no need to be on their payroll, since the objective scientific evidence shows that repeated PMO is not the cause of mental disorders. Prause alone is too insignificant on her own to change the received wisdom of the psychiatric craft. Even if she were the Einstein of sexology, she is one scientist, not the scientific community.
If anything, the porn industry is motivated against funding her research, since it would create a suspicion of WP:COI, and turn out to be a PR nightmare.
Gary Wilson (author) attacked her with numerous occasions, but he made the mistake of believing that his statements are true merely because he is who says them. And, indeed, for his fan base, his words are gospel. But for the reality-based community, claims made without evidence don't mean shit.
You see, for nofappers there has to be a conspiracy against them, else they would be forced to admit they're not very good at science. tgeorgescu (talk) 20:40, 6 March 2023 (UTC)
What??
Hi, i'm from the nofap community, and being honest, the comments about nofap are, exagerated to say the least, first of all, almost everyone from the community is not misognist or racist, where did you guys get his from? 2804:1B3:AD83:E9C7:60C9:2F2C:C8F8:2B44 (talk) 20:22, 29 March 2023 (UTC)
- Do you have any WP:Reliable Sources backing up that position, or is that your WP:Original Research. Also see WP:MANDY. Cakelot1 (talk) 06:59, 30 March 2023 (UTC)
- Yup, there is a distinction between epistemologically responsible knowledge and WP:THETRUTH. We don't know "the truth", we only know what is epistemologically responsible, as rendered by WP:RS.
- If you want "proof", just count the claims of conspiracy from https://www.reddit.com/r/NoFap/comments/u34ltr/the_double_standards_are_insane/ They basically claim that the articles cited herein are paid by the V.I.L.E. porn industry, and that the tiny world elite is robbing men of their wealth and freedom, mainly through not teaching them that semen retention boosts health and energy (esotericism). tgeorgescu (talk) 13:28, 30 March 2023 (UTC)
- tgeorgescu fyi NoFap moderators are inciting posts on Wiki, claiming pornography paid for this page. Again. This is why there are new posts without any new scientific citations. They appear to be angry about a 2021 article accurately cited in the wiki and plotting to try to get it removed. https://www.reddit.com/r/NoFap/comments/125kj0f/wtf_is_going_on_with_wikipedia_nofap_creates/ Guardsmanmario (talk) 15:26, 30 March 2023 (UTC)
Pseudoscience
Lets talk about it your all Informations are incorrect No-Fap originally originated from Celibacy more than 5000 years before when people were believing in flat Earth theory. Giving more information about that I was myself a porn addict but after leaving it I experienced change in my life you can ask my Psychologist. Even today's Neuroscience agree to it! Another thing is that before industrialisation even your forefathers including mine when there were no smart phones and TV's. They didn't know too much about faping. They were mentally and physically strong if you still don't believe you can ask Dr. Trish Leigh about this!
https://www.facebook.com/drtrishleigh 106.207.36.194 (talk) 05:42, 11 April 2023 (UTC)
- Trish Leigh is:
- not a scientist;
- not a medical researcher;
- not a psychology researcher;
- not a sexology researcher.
- And porn addiction is a bogus diagnosis, source: DSM-5-TR. tgeorgescu (talk) 07:06, 11 April 2023 (UTC)
Proxying for a banned user
I could mine the WP:RS mentioned by the banned user, but while it would make the case stronger, I'm afraid that it is basically a repetition of what already is there now in the article. And to the extent that it isn't, it fails WP:MEDRS.
Anyway, the bigger point is: whoever thinks our article is not supported by or misrepresents mainstream science is wrong. tgeorgescu (talk) 13:43, 12 April 2023 (UTC)
Categories:- All unassessed articles
- B-Class Internet culture articles
- Low-importance Internet culture articles
- WikiProject Internet culture articles
- B-Class Websites articles
- Low-importance Websites articles
- B-Class Websites articles of Low-importance
- B-Class Computing articles
- Unknown-importance Computing articles
- All Computing articles
- All Websites articles
- B-Class Sexology and sexuality articles
- Low-importance Sexology and sexuality articles
- WikiProject Sexology and sexuality articles
- B-Class Pornography articles
- Low-importance Pornography articles
- B-Class Low-importance Pornography articles
- WikiProject Pornography articles