Talk:NoFap - Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 106.207.36.194 (talk) at 05:42, 11 April 2023 (→Pseudoscience: new section). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 05:42, 11 April 2023 by 106.207.36.194 (talk) (→Pseudoscience: new section)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)

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.

Internet culture Low‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Internet culture, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of internet culture on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Internet cultureWikipedia:WikiProject Internet cultureTemplate:WikiProject Internet cultureInternet culture

Low

This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

WikiProject Internet culture To-do:

Here are some tasks awaiting attention:

Article requests : View all requested internet culture articles
Expand : Pick an article from here or here
Photo : Category:Internet culture articles needing images
Stubs : All stubs are located here
Other : Category:Internet self-classification codes (!?); Try to get YouTube to FA; Tag all articles you find with {{WikiProject Internet culture}}
- See also Category:Internet culture articles needing attention

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Websites: Computing Low‑importance

	This article is part of WikiProject Websites, an attempt to create and link together articles about the major websites on the web. To participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page.WebsitesWikipedia:WikiProject WebsitesTemplate:WikiProject WebsitesWebsites
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Computing.

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Sexology and sexuality Low‑importance

	Human sexuality portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Sexology and sexuality, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of human sexuality on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Sexology and sexualityWikipedia:WikiProject Sexology and sexualityTemplate:WikiProject Sexology and sexualitySexology and sexuality
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Pornography Low‑importance

	Erotica and pornography portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Pornography, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of pornography-related topics on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PornographyWikipedia:WikiProject PornographyTemplate:WikiProject PornographyPornography
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Archives

Archive 1	Archive 2	Archive 3
Archive 4

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)

Pseudoscience

@Fantboy3: I know that many want to remove mentioning pseudoscience from this article, however that goes against the website policy WP:PSCI. 'What Misplaced Pages won't do is pretend that the work of "lunatic charlatans", as they were described by Jimmy Wales, is the equivalent of "true scientific discourse". It isn't.' WP:LUNATICS.

In respect to This article has a concerning agenda that does not take into account all perspectives and evidence.: you have been served with WP:GOODBIAS upon your talk page. Namely, DSM-5-TR (March 2022) gave the lie to Wilson's/YBOP's "preponderance of evidence" claim. After 20 years of broadband internet there wasn't any evidence that porn addiction even exists. tgeorgescu (talk) 13:38, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

@Fantboy3: The place to discuss the article NoFap is Talk:NoFap. According to WP:GEVAL, Misplaced Pages does not treat perspectives equally. The American Psychiatric Association officially gave the lie to the existence of porn addiction in March 2022, and the existence of porn addiction is NoFap's primary claim. In respect to articles rendering the views of scientists see WP:PARITY. Those who, verifiably, speak in the name of mainstream science and medical orthodoxy are given prominence in articles about WP:FRINGE topics.

About physical beliefs that are not supported by medicine see WP:CITELEAD.

NoFap believes that the stimulus porn + excessive masturbation is the cause of disease, instead of being just a symptom. By and large, psychiatrists and sexologists do not buy the into claims made by NoFap. So that makes NoFap WP:FRINGE.

NoFap justifies itself through a paranoid worldview, wherein mainstream sexologists are shills of the porn industry, in a grandiose comparison with MDs who were shills of Big Tobacco. tgeorgescu (talk) 15:53, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

(Moved here from my talk page. -Guy)

I have a question regarding my edits on the NoFap page of Misplaced Pages. I respect your comment and understand the part regarding it being based on pseudoscience. That makes sense. However, I think that a lot of my edits were, outside of the removal of this term, fair and made the article more objective. NoFap has a lot of disinformation and unsubstantiated claims in its site, and it's okay to mention that, but there were also many unsubstantiated and un-cited claims against the site which should not have been removed. If I go back and edit the article to put back in that NoFap was a pseudoscience (as this is a very real error on my part), would it be acceptable for me to revert to the other changes I had made to the article?

Thanks for your help, Fantboy3 Fantboy3 (talk) 14:58, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

Wrong place, wrong user, wrong way to try to re-introduce your edits after they were reverted.

Instead of just re-adding the edits that were reverted, please read and follow the advice at WP:BRD.

Instead of posting to any user talk page you should discuss the article at Talk:NoFap.

And if you insist on commenting on a user talk page instead of the right place, instead of posting to my talk page saying "I respect your comment and understand the part regarding it being based on pseudoscience" you should post to the talk page of the person who actually made that comment, which is tgeorgescu, not me.

I have never edited the page in question before this comment, nor have I ever had any interactions with you, but now that I have checked your posting history, I will tell you that you need to change your ways. Let's look at one of your edits:

In that edit you removed " ... physical beliefs that are not supported by medicine." with the comment "Allegations that 'the claims of the community are not supported by medicine' are not supported by the citation cited."

You should not write things that you know are not true. In particular, The Psychology Today cite says:

"Unfortunately, the NoFap community seems filled with people who believe that the strength of their beliefs is equivalent to scientific evidence, and they fail to acknowledge the subjective weakness of their reliance on anecdotes... The press is part of the problem, by treating these issues as though the anecdotes and moral conviction are just as important as scientific evidence. That’s why we have the anti-vaccine crisis. Same dynamic here, thankfully with less critical results."

Did you imaging that nobody would check the citations and see that your claim was false?

At this point. I think you should propose whichever change you think is your best here on the article talk page and participate in the discussion. If it is good, others will agree and it will get into the article. Then move on to your second-best change, etc. --Guy Macon (talk) 23:45, 26 January 2023 (UTC)

@Fantboy3: You see, his response is even harsher than what I had to say. And I'm usually the party pooper in respect to porn addiction articles. tgeorgescu (talk) 12:15, 27 January 2023 (UTC)

I thought about trying pornography, but I couldn't find anyone who would sell me a pornograph. --Guy Macon (talk) 16:07, 27 January 2023 (UTC)

To be sure, this accuses the DSM-5 team of having committed the egregious error of discarding porn addiction. What did DSM-5-TR had to say about porn addiction? The same thing as DSM-5, namely that there is not enough peer-reviewed evidence that porn addiction exists at all. tgeorgescu (talk) 18:50, 28 January 2023 (UTC)

New Sexual Medicine Review

A new paper describes that r/NoFap is leading men away from evidence-based care for depression, causing harm to public health. Shahinyan, Gary K.; Hu, Ming-Yeah (2023). "Cannabis and male sexual health: contemporary qualitative review and insight into perspectives of young men on the internet". Sexual Medicine Reviews: 1–12. doi:10.1093/sxmrev/qeac010. Figvostok1enchanting (talk) 17:05, 24 February 2023 (UTC)

Agree. Valid WP:MEDRS. tgeorgescu (talk) 17:53, 24 February 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)

Categories: