Misplaced Pages

Talk:NoFap

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Tgeorgescu (talk | contribs) at 15:48, 25 January 2023 (Pseudoscience: into). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 15:48, 25 January 2023 by Tgeorgescu (talk | contribs) (Pseudoscience: into)(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.
WikiProject iconInternet culture Low‑importance
WikiProject iconThis 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
LowThis article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject Internet culture To-do:

Here are some tasks awaiting attention:
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
WikiProject iconWebsites: Computing Low‑importance
WikiProject iconThis 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
LowThis article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale.
Taskforce icon
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.
WikiProject iconSexology and sexuality Low‑importance
WikiProject iconThis 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
LowThis 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.
WikiProject iconPornography Low‑importance
WikiProject iconThis 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
LowThis article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Archiving icon
Archives
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 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.

Article is obviously biased

Apparently not masturbating makes you racist, misogynistic and “whorephobic” lol. And I liked the use of “far-right, religious fundamentalists, and conservative who are biblical inerrantists” as wikipedia-speak for religious people. This article needs to be moved to Criticism of NoFap and a whole new one written that actually talks about what NoFap is I💖平沢唯 (talk) 00:59, 14 July 2022 (UTC)

Won't do. Misplaced Pages is biased against pseudoscience, it has always been and it will always be. And we have plenty of WP:RS telling us that NoFap is sexual pseudoscience on steroids. tgeorgescu (talk) 14:38, 14 July 2022 (UTC)
@ILoveHirasawaYui: I'm not an admin, so I'm not the person imparting bans around here. Religious guilt is an issue, however, it is the guilt of religion and not that of masturbation. And we're not even criticizing religion for this. We are criticizing the fact that random people self-diagnose with a mental disorder which is not recognized by MDs, and then proceed to self-treatment, often paying lots of money to self-appointed reboot coaches. Those who are short of money just enjoy self-treatment encouraged by the NoFap forum. In other words: that forum is loaded with psychically fragile people, very frustrated, and it is seen as a place to recruit adepts for extreme right organizations. Basically, what happened to /r/incels is happening to /r/NoFap at a slower speed; I know that the leader of NoFap does not want such troublemakers, however he is paddling upstream. And it seems that their recently deceased guru did not shy from personal attacks, threats of violence and even blackmailing his opponents into giving him control of their own website (straight dope: his attempt to get in control of their website through WIPO arbitration failed). tgeorgescu (talk) 02:45, 15 July 2022 (UTC)
See . I did not write that because I would oppose masturbation, but because it is mainstream science. Same applies to what I write about NoFap. tgeorgescu (talk) 23:54, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

Empirical data

If you want sheer empirical data, here are raw empirical data: https://osf.io/pva6k Hint: it was never illegal to scientifically study publicly available information. Confidentiality contracts are only valid if signed in writing on paper by both parties. One cannot unilaterally impose that publicly available information is off-limits for scientists. Have the scientists signed their agreement to keep it confidential on paper? No, so they are not bound by website license or by disclaimers. Same as confidentiality disclaimers from e-mails are juridically worthless. If lawyers did write such disclaimers, they are incompetent lawyers. See e.g. https://cenkuslaw.com/annoying-email-confidentiality-disclaimers/ A lawyer who thinks they can unilaterally put a random person under a NDA by simply e-mailing them a disclaimer is mentally unfit for their job. tgeorgescu (talk) 17:16, 1 September 2022 (UTC)

what is Misplaced Pages for?

Misplaced Pages is not here to establish a scientific consensus, or to decide what is pseudoscience or not. It is here to use referenced links to acceptable works that might say these things. Not everything that is pseudoscience or irrational gets that mentioned in the articles, whether it's because it's original research, or the topic is privileged. 142.163.194.243 (talk) 01:21, 23 July 2022 (UTC)

TLDR: Our article seems like heavy-handed propaganda, simply because of Brandolini's law.Nothing can prevent Misplaced Pages from learning the scientific consensus and telling it as it is.
Yup, Misplaced Pages isn't a party to the scientific debate, therefore Misplaced Pages simply takes at face value the judgments upon pseudoscience made by the scientific authorities and by the recognized debunkers of pseudoscience. But Misplaced Pages is a hard-core encyclopedia like Britannica and Larousse, and mainly so through kowtowing to WP:SPOV and mainstream WP:SCHOLARSHIP. Otherwise, it isn't clear to me what you mean and how would you like this article to be changed.
And it is quite true that Misplaced Pages isn't the referee of the scientific consensus, but nothing prevents Misplaced Pages from learning what the scientific consensus is, from the proper scientific and medical authorities. So, yeah, we never WP:CITE our personal opinions in order to establish that, but Misplaced Pages holds the American Psychiatric Association in high respect, as a source which can clearly speak through its official channels upon the medical consensus in respect to pornography.
The resolutions of the 16 US states legislatures proclaiming pornography as a public health crisis are quite deluded, and politicians should not play doctor, it's not their job, as they are not qualified to decide upon what should be the medical consensus.
The US Congress already has a scientific advisor stipulated by law, namely the National Academy of Sciences. So Congressmen should drop their own personal views and follow its highly competent scientific advice. It's not the job of politicians to assess the validity of scientific claims, they should trust the experts instead. Conservative politicians would like to ban universities from teaching the theory of evolution, but as long as US remain a free country, they won't get away with that. It surely bothers them that their holy book is given the lie, and that's paid with taxpayers money.
Porn as a public health crisis? That's definitely not what the National Academy of Medicine is saying. At https://www.google.com/search?q=site%3Anam.edu+pornography&newwindow=1&client=firefox-b-d there is almost nothing about porn. Also, at https://www.google.com/search?q=site:nationalacademies.org+porn+health+crisis&newwindow=1&client=firefox-b-d there is nothing which supports the claim of the 16 legislatures.
Quite clearly stated here: Nelson, Kimberly M.; Rothman, Emily F. (2020). "Should Public Health Professionals Consider Pornography a Public Health Crisis?". American journal of public health. 110 (2). American Public Health Association: 151–153. doi:10.2105/ajph.2019.305498. ISSN 0090-0036. PMC 6951382. PMID 31913670. Although research suggests that pornography use likely influences some people negatively, and it merits further research, pornography itself is not a crisis. The movement to declare pornography a public health crisis is rooted in an ideology that is antithetical to many core values of public health promotion and is a political stunt, not reflective of best available evidence.
If you wonder, Rothman published her own book about pornography as a public crisis at Oxford University Press, so she is quite reliable for the claim made.
The legislatures were also lambasted by McKay, Kimberley; Poulin, Christopher; Muñoz-Laboy, Miguel (30 November 2020). "Claiming Public Health Crisis to Regulate Sexual Outlets: A Critique of the State of Utah's Declaration on Pornography". Archives of sexual behavior. 50 (2). Springer Science and Business Media LLC: 401–405. doi:10.1007/s10508-020-01884-8. ISSN 0004-0002. PMC 7703733. PMID 33258005.
So, yeah, Misplaced Pages claims very decidedly that NoFap is pseudoscience, but that is not based upon my own musings, but it is simply rendering mainstream medical science for what it is. Of course, I agree with this judgment, but this is only because I generally seek to agree with mainstream science. One does not advance public health by embracing quacks and pseudoscience-peddling grifters.
It would be completely wrong if I were pushing my own POV in respect to what amounts to pseudoscience. But this is not the case, since such information is corroborated by multiple high-quality WP:RS.
Why does Misplaced Pages wage a war against pseudoscience while Britannica and Larousse apparently don't? Because the staff of Britannica and Larousse may throw any pseudoscience-peddling letter to the garbage bin, instead of rationally arguing with the peddlers in order to convince them to behave with some respect for mainstream science. And I can assure you that by throwing your letter to the garbage bin, Britannica and Larousse do not harm you in any way, nor is there any option for legal redress. At the end of the day, science has spoken. Of course scientific consensus could change in time, but that's already a truism to all educated people.
YBOP tweeted this strange idea that there is a war between me and NoFap. That I would have some agenda against NoFap. No, it is a war between mainstream psychiatry and NoFap. I only report such war, from the perspective of mainstream science and medical orthodoxy, otherwise I'm very much for get the popcorn. I'm not a party to this dispute, I'm not a party to the scientific debate, and if APA PLONKed NoFap it is not my own fault. I know very well that there is a difference between my own ideas and the scientific consensus. I know very well that Misplaced Pages isn't for pushing my own POV. I know very well that Misplaced Pages isn't based upon the personal opinions of its editors, but upon WP:RS.
I'm not even opposed to APA recognizing a diagnosis of porn addiction. Knowing what I know, I asses its likelihood as extremely unlikely, but I would not cry or waste tears if that would happen. I have no shares which would fall if such diagnosis would be recognized. I'm not a party to such dispute.
Many outsiders who saw my edits were firmly convinced that I am an enemy of Spiru Haret University and of the Romanian Constitutional Bar, while in reality I have no dog in such fights, and it is not me causing their legal problems. I was never harmed by NoFap, Spiru Haret University, or the Romanian Constitutional Bar, so I am not using Misplaced Pages for redressing my grievances. If the news are bad, blame the reality, don't shoot the messenger. Just because I don't dodge the bad news, it does not mean that I hate nofappers. My desire is to understand reality, and report it according to mainstream science. I am the bringer of bad news, but I am not myself the cause of bad news. I cultivate rational criticism, not hate speech. Really, there is no hate, more like pity.
Similarly to the above-mentioned study, I think that nofappers are concerned and compassionate, but scientifically misguided. The idea that sexual fasting heals a purported addiction is fanciful, to say the least.
So, I am not an "agenda-editor" and this article isn't "propaganda", unless you mean that I have an agenda for making propaganda for mainstream science, which is more commonly called educating. Misplaced Pages is heavily biased for mainstream science, and the claims of nofappers are, by and large, not recognized as science. The famous TEDx talk by Gary Wilson is crammed with pseudoscientific claims and suggestions to breach the ethics of psychotherapy. Coaches, unlike psychotherapists, acknowledge no professional ethics and aren't required to hold any accredited college degrees. That's why Wilson could present himself as coach, but never as psychotherapist. His TEDx speech is simply put a Gish gallop. Our article seems like heavy-handed propaganda, simply because of Brandolini's law. tgeorgescu (talk) 18:22, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

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)

Semi-Protected edit request

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

In either Litigation or the subsection Research concerning NoFap forums and followers of the Reception section, please add the lawsuit against Nicole Prause. https://www.vice.com/amp/en/article/ywa97m/nofap-founder-suing-a-neuroscientist-no-nut-november 2600:100C:A206:278D:D074:8947:B731:EC92 (talk) 07:04, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

 Done tgeorgescu (talk) 07:27, 21 November 2022 (UTC)
2600:100C:A206:278D:D074:8947:B731:EC92 appears created solely to insert a personal attack against an individual living person on this web page. The resolution of the case was never covered by any media because it is not newsworthy, failing . The law firm defaming their target in national news does not make the case newsworthy. Further, Dr. Prause is not as an individual scientist who admitted zero liability. The mere appearance of this case by a targeted edit from a new user appears to be NoFap members themselves trying to smear those who publish science on them. From the study "NP made reports to law enforcement due to threats of harassment and violence posted on Reboot forums that named her." The fact that the resolution was never covered makes clear wiki is being abused to include media sought by a for-profit group attacking the reputable sources and private individuals publishing science on them makes clear this was nuisance suit they want to misrepresent here again. Antfightclubcatsup (talk) 02:27, 26 November 2022 (UTC)
The MAC address for the user was from a Wireshark server used to hide his identity identity. For this reason, I believe 2600:100C:A206:278D:D074:8947:B731:EC92 is actually a conflict of interest WP:COI for NoFap hiding their identity to request inappropriate edits in Wikipeda. This was one of the online resources showing the address belongs to an IP bank used to elude identification https://maclookup.app/search/result?mac=2600%3A100C%3AA206%3A278D%3AD074%3A8947%3AB731%3AEC92 Antfightclubcatsup (talk) 04:18, 26 November 2022 (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. tgeorgescu (talk) 15:47, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

Categories:
Talk:NoFap Add topic