Misplaced Pages

Talk:Effects of pornography: Difference between revisions

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.
Browse history interactively← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 18:39, 27 December 2008 editKristen Eriksen (talk | contribs)3,612 edits +← Previous edit Latest revision as of 17:45, 22 November 2024 edit undoLowercase sigmabot III (talk | contribs)Bots, Template editors2,296,962 editsm Archiving 1 discussion(s) to Talk:Effects of pornography/Archive 2) (bot 
(650 intermediate revisions by 86 users not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
{{Talk header}}
{{WikiProject Psychology}}
{{FAQ|collapsed=no}}
{{Pornproject | class = | importance =}}
{{Old AfD multi |date=29 November 2021 |result='''keep''' |page=Effects of pornography}}
{{WikiProject banner shell |class=C|1=
{{WikiProject Psychology|importance=High|needs-infobox=no}}
{{WikiProject Pornography| importance =Top}}
{{WikiProject Sexology and sexuality|importance=high|needs-image=yes}}
{{WikiProject Anthropology|importance=high}}
{{WikiProject Sociology|importance=high}}
{{WikiProject Conservatism|importance=Low}}
{{WikiProject Politics|importance=Low}}
{{WikiProject Religion|importance=high|needs-image=yes}}
}}
{{Copied |collapse = <!-- Collapses the list of items if set to "yes". Only supported when two or more items are used --> |from1 = Effects of pornography on relationships |from_oldid1 = 1051304757 |to1 = Effects of pornography |date1 = 06:30, 24 October 2021 |merge1 = yes |diff1 = https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Effects_of_pornography&diff=1051553255&oldid=1051457789}}
{{anchor|FAQ}}


{{page views}}
==Additional material to be included==
This article will be expanded to cover studies which have found that, in the United States, states which have higher rates of sexual assaults also have higher readership of pornographic magazines, and that rapists view pornographic material more frequently than the general public. Other important areas of expansion include findings that the legalization of pornography in some Scandinavian countries was not accompanied by an increase in the rate of sexual assaults, and that controlled studies predating Zillmann, Dolf: "Effects of Prolonged Consumption of Pornography", have found that limited exposure to pornography over much shorter periods of time than examined in the Zillmann study was not correlated with variables suggesting an increased willingness to engage in sexual assaults or other adverse effects. Readers may evaluate the merits of the methodologies employed by various studies, and draw their own conclusions. ] 00:33, 27 January 2008 (UTC)


{{archivebox|]}}
==Changes to Introduction Paragraph==
{{User:MiszaBot/config
| algo = old(365d)
| archive = Talk:Effects of pornography/Archive %(counter)d
| counter = 2
| maxarchivesize = 150K
| archiveheader = {{Automatic archive navigator}}
| minthreadstoarchive = 1
| minthreadsleft = 3
}}


== Thoughts ==
I have modified the introduction paragraph to better reflect the content of the page. The previous version, although stating that the current research was inconclusive, implied that more research indicated correlation between availability of pornography and sex crime. This is not true and is inconsistent with the body of the page which describes studies which together indicate the opposite correlation.


1. The section about higher STD rates for sex workers is not contextualized within the article which seems to be mainly about the consumption of pornography and not the impact on producers (sex workers). Challenges faced by sex workers should be more clearly be delineated in the intro if the article is going to discuss it, sex workers are also impacted by societal views on sex workers and pornography and not only the pornography itself.
I have left the assertion that the current state of research is inconclusive, although to back this up, we really need to describe some research here which does indicate a positive correlation between crime and availability.


2. The intro has this sentence: "Consumption of pornographic material is associated with negative and positive impacts"
Also, the page is called Public Health Effects of Pornography but everything on the page so far is related almost exclusively to sex crimes. There is a brief reference to decreased sexual response, but I feel the article needs a lot more to fairly cover the topic. Other subjects that might be considered for inclusion here:


Where does the article mention the positive effects? If we don't delve into positive effects in the article then we should just remove that sentence.
* pornography as an addiction
* the effects of pornography on couples' sexual health
* pornography's role in mitigating the health risks of sexual abstinence for single males

==Epidemiology==
Are the first few sentences relevant to this article? it seems that validity should appear in an article on epidemiology, not here. ] (]) 15:57, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

== Title ==

In think the article title, "Studies on effects of Pornography" will be more generic and will cover more topics. ] (]) 12:44, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

==Material recently added to this article==
Much of the content added by ] is attributed to sources which do not meet the standards for reliability described in ] since they are not peer reviewed and are published by the anti-pornography advocacy website , which seems to have something of an axe to grind :) Therefore, I am removing the problematic material. ] (]) 22:44, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
:Pages which aren't peer reviewed and are published on the websites of other advocacy organizations, such as this one , are likewise not reliable sources per ]. Even portions of mainstream newspaper articles can turn into unreliable sources if they simply restate material which isn't peer reviewed, attributing it to its original authors without any assertion of validity. ] (]) 23:07, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
::I agree, and also the same with more recent edits. People's opinions do not count as scientific research - if that's allowed, then equally we ought to be able to cite opinions of people who claim the opposite. Also, much of the material added makes a ] fallacy, focusing on people known to be violent criminals, and noting that they often happen to use porn. This does not mean that using porn leads to violent crime (anymore than saying all rapists enjoy sex, therefore sex leads to rape; or all criminals breath oxygen, therefore breathing oxygen leads to crime....) ] (]) 15:27, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

;Lets analyze few of the edits:
* How can you explain the removal of material from published from BBC and highly notable magazine like Christianity Today? Both are reliable sources.

* , adds "however these focus on whether violent criminals viewed pornography, rather than whether viewing pornography leads to violent crime." which is a ]. I want the above statement from a ].

* , which removes material from a ], can somebody prove that the book ''Journey Into Darkness'' is unreliable?

* The summary of , "what's wrong with fueling fantasies of consensual BDSM? misleading and pov; remove wikilink for violent porn - no evidence that the material he viewed is related to the UK law" is itself a POV. Read carefully , "What's wrong" :) And these are research figures from a highly notable person . And how can violent porn be equated with UK law and unwikified?

* removes material from a prostitution research center, can someone prove that the research center is unreliable? And note that this organization is supported by government and the researcher is Melissa Farlay, a highly notable researcher, this cannot be removed.

* is not valid, as per ], a lead is very necessary which provides insight into into the article.

* gives more weightage to ]... needless to say, this section is missing what his opponents say, and draws from a single source.

* <s> removes the magazines, while it retains the other stuff... The person is a highly notable researcher. </s>

* is plain vandalism, a well referenced material from an international journal was removed. "Snip stats" is not a correct summary, even the "graphs" are stats drawn from a single source... applying the same analogy, even the graphs can be remove.

The edits which removed BBC, research organizations supported from governments, International Journals are not valid, nor is the removal of the lead. I will add them later, and needless to say, the same can be confirmed at the ]. This article gives ] to Kutchinsky... And applying the same analogy of the edit summaries of the ones I have listed above, Kutchinsky can easily be removed., but he is a reliable source and has a place in the article.
{{quotation|
There is no way a research, survey can be removed, see ] which particularly addresses it...Let the facts speak for themselves...
}}


3. The intro briefly states "some people may become addicted to it" but no context is provided. Some studies suggest that a small percentage of individuals may experience problematic or compulsive patterns of porn consumption that could be classified as an addiction. However, it's important to note that not everyone who consumes porn will develop an addiction, and people can engage in such behavior without negative consequences. ] (]) 08:58, 29 November 2023 (UTC)
] (]) 17:23, 22 December 2008 (UTC)


:The reliability of the BBC and Christian Today is in the sense that "These people had these experiences". That is not in dispute. However, the Misplaced Pages text claimed that the authors were "researchers" who "have reported direct correlation between usage of pornography and visiting prostitutes". No they have not, as far as I can see? To generalise from a few anecdotal cases to a direct correlation is original research.
::I think the anecdotes can be removed., agree with you, I will read these links in detail and see if it ''really'' makes sense. ] (]) 16:13, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
:"I want the above statement from a reliable source." - the sources are those given yourself, which look at pornography usage and crime (e.g., "pornography has influenced several sex-related crime"). If you dispute the reliability of the sources, then we should remove them. It is also original research to make assumptions of a "link". If this is in dispute, then I suggest we remove the statement altogether and do not say anything one way or the other.
::The "link" has been said by the FBI agents, referenced through out the section


:" is itself a POV." - no, the burden is upon the one who wants to add material to the article, i.e., you. My point isn't that Journey Into Darkness is unreliable, but it is off-topic (and POV) to place tendencies towards ] under "Violent crime"! I have no problem with moving it into a neutral section (although "people who use BDSM porn are more likely to be into BDSM" seems a statement of the bleeding obvious to me, and could be said of any kind of material...)
::If a reliable FBI researcher argues that sadomachism and BDSM leads to violence, this definitely has a place here. And I am sorry for the personal attack, it was in the heat of moment, sorry for that. This is not correct on my part. ] (]) 16:13, 23 December 2008 (UTC)


== Wiki Edu Assigment: Comm 500 Class , List Of Edits and thoughts ==
:"And how can violent porn be equated with UK law and unwikified?" - read the article its linked to. It's about a UK law. Misplaced Pages is not a dictionary, so we don't wikilink every word that might have an article, we wikilink ''articles'' that are relevant to the word in context.
::Agree with this one. ] (]) 16:13, 23 December 2008 (UTC)


Hello, I realized that we had to outline the changes we made for the wiki instead of putting it just in the edit review/version history
:Re , read my edit summary - I am not disputing the reliability, I am saying this is off-topic for ''effects'' of porn. I don't mind if you want to put it in an article on prostitution. (If sex slaves were forced to work at knifepoint, this clearly would not be an "effect of knives", or placed in a knife article - the appropriate place would obviously be an article on sex slavery.)
::will check this, if the article been, "Studies on Pornography", this section makes sense.


So here is the comprehensive list of changes that I made to reach the most recent version of this Effects of Pornography article: (FROM TOP TO BOTTOM)
:Re: the lead, where is Misplaced Pages policy that states individual opinions should be in the lead as if they are representative of the article?
::Yes, I have removed individual opinions.


# Finalized the Lead to encompass the definition of pornography, along with a breakdown of different effects that are going to be discussed in the article
:I find it curious that you criticise "undue weight", when your edits have placed vast amounts of undue weight in the opposite direction... I also did not remove or add material - I simply moved it. Do you think that anecdotal experiences should be before scientific studies?
# Next to "associations of addiction", i added the fact that theories are going to be discussed in the article also '''(last little section was kept)'''
# Added " A Few Key Theories" heading, Sexuality Theory umbrella heading, SEXUAL STRATEGIES THEORY, REWARD AND CONDITIONING THEORY, SOCIAL EXCHANGE THEORY.
# Social Exchange Theory Model (Picture) was added to break up reading pace.
# some words are changed in Sexual Scripting section to improve flow and clarity '''( Last small section of Sexual Scripting was untouched)'''
# Added Scripting Framework Section
# METHODOLOGY LIMITATIONS HEADING and its contents were removed, did not make sense as methodologies were not mentioned exclusively
# " Added a Psychological Effects and its Studies" Section ('''FIRST PARAGRAPH THAT MENTIONS ADDICTIONS UNTOUCHED)''' , might need future revision
# Added a specific "studies" heading ( '''second paragraph was untouched''' and last paragraph of this section was broken up for clarity)
# Added a "Psychological Effects" Image
# Added Cognitive Effects heading and a few paragraphs to expand the concept
# Split the previous paragraph into its own section of Contradicting Views
# added a few meanings to the abbreviations ( '''Withdrawal Symptoms Untouched)'''
# Added a "pornographic control proposals" section title '''( contents untouched)'''
# MENTAL BLOCKS heading added and provided a lead paragraph to introduce the specific section topic
# added a man and "masculinity" section heading and provided word clarity in its first paragraph '''( second paragraph of this section is untouched, this section might need a little bit more sources, did not have time, added citation 39)'''
# added a "women and self-consciousness" section heading, provided clarity to the second paragraph of the section '''( FIRST AND THIRD PARAGRAPH UNTOUCHED)'''
# changed a few words around in the last tiny section of the Women's section
# EXPANDED both the Delay Discounting and Dehumanization section
# Public health section was '''NOT''' my addition '''( but did improve wording)'''
# changed up the words and improved the flow of the Sexual desires section '''(first and last paragraph of section was untouched)'''
# Pamela Anderson Line was removed as I felt it didn't fit with the section at all.
# Improved wording in Sexual Function section '''( also added citation 49 to back claims)'''
# Improved wording in Sexual Satisfaction section '''( last paragraph is untouched, welcome to re-check)'''
# removed redundant wording of the first paragraph in sexual preferences section
# improved wording and flow for the other parts of this section, although it is split into two fue to it being a little too long
# Added Sexual Preferences Image
# Added Aggression and Extreme content section (content basically unchanged aside from simplification of wording)
# Sexual violence controlled studies section 1st paragraph rewritten for maximum clarity
# Meta analysis paragraph and Emily F Rothman paragraph simplified
# '''The DIAGRAM was NOT my addition''', might have to be checked for accuracy.
# changed a few words in the Ferguson and Hartley paragraph, '''5th paragraph UNTOUCHED'''
# tiny sentence in the 6th Paragraph condensed with the Emily F Rothman Paragraph
# Epidemiological studies section only simplified but generally '''untouched'''
# added a Teen Dating Violence study and expanded into a paragraph
# added the white ribbon imagery
# "pornography is not the cause of Rape" statement removed , it was a stand alone and did not make sense.
# improved wording on First paragraph of Effects of reltionships Heading
# also improved wording on the first paragraph of Relationship Satisfaction ('''Second Paragraph Untouched)'''
# improved flow for the other parts of this section
# removed redundant wording in the communications section
# added a "pornography mirroring and Consent" Section
# added citations 115-119 for the consent section
# added the symbol of consent image
# Changed the Heading of Occupational safety to " Pornographic effects to adult film performers"
# added a famous cases section detailing the adult stars that have exited the industry ( citation 121-123)
# added the Pornhub image because it is mentioned in the section.
# First paragraph and Block quote of Effects on Adolescence Heading '''Untouched''' (further research might be needed in the future)
# rest of the section have edited words to improve flow


I have been tackling this article for about 2 months for my Wiki Project, I have done all I could in the course of the semester and will probably have some mistakes. I've updated the article with the sources I could find so that they're all backed with some kind of proof. I added pictures as well to break off the text walls for an easier read. I am still a student and will not have perfect judgment as to what is best for the article, but I have done my best to improve it
:Please do not make accusations of vandalism - my reason for is given in the summary. Again, there is no evidence that this is an ''effect'' of pornography.
::I feel that this is not off-topic, see the effect part, "most frequent users of pornography were also the most frequent users of women in prostitution."


Thankyou
:I agree with "Let the facts speak for themselves" - I am not disputing the facts, the problem is that facts (such as individual experiences) are being represented as scientific research (this article is supposed to be about "''studies''") and generalised claims (e.g., claims of a direct correlation, and causative links). Nor should we have a lead which makes conclusions about effects from porn from a handful of people. Remember that this article is not "correlation with porn and other things", it is "'''effects''' of porn", thus things which are ''caused'' by porn. Correlation does not imply causation, so including correlations in an article about ''effects'' is POV.
::I will say that, "Studies on Pornography" is more apt, why cover only "effects"?


( should any changes need to be made, please feel free to edit after :) ) ] (]) 08:28, 12 December 2023 (UTC)
:The alternative is that we dig out opinions from anyone who disputes these links (for which there must be plenty, especially if anecdotal experiences are allowed), and present them too.


:I have taken a look at the large number of additions you made to the article. Unfortunately, most of them are primary source studies. Misplaced Pages is based upon secondary independent sources, namely books and academic reviews. Primary source studies are problematic because they have not been assessed in the context of the broader scientific literature and are prone to failing replication.
:Another possibility is that we rename this article from "effects" of pornography, to something that is less strong a word? Similarly drop the "Studies" - how about ] or ]? In these articles, it would be more appropriate to include the criticisms and opinions of anyone notable, without worrying that this is being presented by Misplaced Pages as a study that shows an actual effect of pornography.
:In addition, most of the content you have added is based upon associational studies. Correlation is not causation. An association between poor relationship satisfaction and porn use does not prove that porn reduces relationship satisfaction. It could be that those in unsatisfying relationships are more likely to watch porn.
::Fine, "Studies on pornography" or even "Opinions on pornography", no probs.
:A lot of this is going to need trimming back. ] (]) 22:52, 9 April 2024 (UTC)


::Yup, a ] is ] that the {{tq|association between poor relationship satisfaction and porn use}} only holds for white men (that is: not for women, and not for men of other races). At the Dutch Misplaced Pages such edit was reverted together with deleting the association claim, because the recorded effect was too small.
:I do not have time right now, so I have tagged this article until these problems can be resolved. What do other editors think? ] (]) 19:25, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
::Being statistically significant and explaining much of the variation are two very different matters. You could have a result which is thoroughly significant, but only explains a few percents of the variation. I didn't do the math, but my two cents are that the Dutchies aren't far off.
::That's the problem with porn research in general: causality cannot be shown, and most of the variation simply does not get explained (measured correlations are from small to modest). ] (]) 02:28, 25 April 2024 (UTC)
:::I think most of this primary source stuff should be trimmed out, we need to replace it with reviews/books. There have been quite a few recently. ] (]) 03:42, 25 April 2024 (UTC)


== Categories ==
::Yes I agree with what you say related to the lead part, and I have rewritten it with a more neutral word usage, from ], for other things I will look into them and comment/make changes when I get time., ] (]) 15:58, 23 December 2008 (UTC)


@IP because of revert: while porn could incite some mentally unstable men to commit rape, it has the opposite effect upon the vast majority of men. That's why I reverted you. ] (]) 18:01, 19 November 2024 (UTC)
==Reliable sources==
Per ], <blockquote>In general, the most reliable sources are ] journals and books published in university presses; university-level textbooks; magazines, journals, and books published by respected publishing houses; and mainstream newspapers... Academic and peer-reviewed publications are highly valued and usually the most reliable sources in areas where they are available, such as history, medicine and science.</blockquote>It is abundantly clear that much of ]'s content comes nowhere close to meeting the standards of source reliability articulated in our verifiability policy. An inordinately large portion of said content is referenced directly to , a non-peer-reviewed, partisan website, which is a reliable source only for the views of anti-pornography activists, and should not be cited for evidence of legitimate scientific research. All material that holds itself out as scientific research and is supported solely by references to should be excised from the article. A more difficult question is presented by quotations of medical professionals or law enforcement agents in mainstream newspapers. While such newspapers are generally reliable sources, such reliability extends only to claims which the newspaper has itself endorsed. Thus, when a newspaper reports that a professional has claimed that pornography produces certain health effects, we may not transform their representations of third-party claims into material on which the newspapers themselves have placed their imprimatur. Consequently, newspaper reporting of professionals' claims with no endorsement thereof should not be included in this article for the purpose of representing it as legitimate scientific research, since the reporting does not establish that the claims themselves have ever been endorsed by any peer-reviewed reliable source. Finally, theological publications, such as ], are reliable sources only for religion, not scientific research. ] 18:53, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
:I agree with John254: we aren't trying to turn this article into an abridged mirror of :) As bad as it is to use content from that site in which academics provide alleged "research" which hasn't been validated by the peer-review standards of academia, it's even worse to use their quotations of FBI agents and other LEOs based on their subjective personal experiences, with no pretensions to research at all. I might as well write an essay about the benefits I've received through working in porn, how I've supported myself through college with just a few hours of work each week, the intense exhibitionistic pleasure that I feel from knowing that there are tens of thousands of people watching me having sex on video, then have it published on the pro-porn ]'s website, and include it in the article as an example of the economic and psychological health benefits that young women derive from working in porn :) Well, my experience might be atypical, and if the article is going to describe the effects of porn on young female actresses, it needs to be based on research conducted in a systematic and statistically controlled manner, and validated through academic peer review. Otherwise, the article will decompose into a megabytes-long compilation of message board postings :( ] (]) 18:39, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Latest revision as of 17:45, 22 November 2024

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Effects of pornography article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.
Article policies
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
Archives: 1, 2Auto-archiving period: 12 months 
? view · edit Frequently asked questions

The main points of this FAQ (Talk:Effects of pornography#FAQ) can be summarized as:

More detail is given on this point, below.

To view the response to a question, click the link to the right of the question.

Q1: Why don't you state pornography addiction as fact? A1: Our policies on Misplaced Pages, in particular WP:WEIGHT and WP:FRINGE, require us to provide coverage to views based on their prominence within reliable sources, and we must reflect the opinion of the scientific community as accurately as possible. For example, if the APA will include pornography addiction in the DSM, then Misplaced Pages will rubber-stamp its decision. Otherwise, Misplaced Pages isn't here to give a "fair and balanced" treatment to your pet ideas. In this respect, Misplaced Pages is merely a mirror which reflects medical orthodoxy. There is no official document from WHO, AMA, APA, Cochrane or APA which would imply that sex/porn/masturbation addiction would be a valid diagnosis. (CSBD isn't an addiction.) Further information: WP:MEDRS Q2: Why don't you state that porn use is paraphilia (pictophilia)? A2: The majority of US men use porn. What the majority does is axiomatically clinically normal in psychiatry. According to The Huffington Post, 70% of men and 30% of women watch porn. Quite probably, the majority of US population between ages 18 and 35 use porn at least once a week. Conclusion? The people who say porn use is paraphilia should suck it up and be a man: they lost the debate, so they should quit whining. DSM-5 code for pornography use? Not any. ICD-10 code for pornography use? Not any. ICD-11 code for pornography use? Not any. So, of course it isn't paraphilia. Even allowing that an excessive obsession with porn is paraphilia, normal (ordinary) porn use isn't. Q3: Why don't you state that pornography increases sexual aggression? A3: Our policies on Misplaced Pages, in particular WP:WEIGHT and WP:FRINGE, require us to provide coverage to views based on their prominence within reliable sources, and we must reflect the opinion of the scientific community as accurately as possible. Crime statistics make the claim highly unlikely, and per WP:EXTRAORDINARY multiple, independent and very strong WP:MEDRS-compliant sources are required in order to overturn long-standing medical consensus, see also WP:RS/AC. Otherwise, Misplaced Pages isn't here to give a "fair and balanced" treatment to your pet ideas. In this respect, Misplaced Pages is merely a mirror which reflects medical orthodoxy.

Does Malamuth say that pornography increases sexual aggression? Nope, that's a misreading of his papers, as he himself declared to Quartz publication.

Further information: WP:MEDRS Past discussions References
  1. Stone, Lyman (26 June 2019). "Conservative Protestant Men Are Still Resisting Porn". Christianity Today. Carol Stream, Illinois. ISSN 0009-5753. Archived from the original on 27 June 2019. Retrieved 31 July 2021. By contrast, Protestant men today who attend church regularly are basically the only men in America still resisting the cultural norm of regularized pornography use.
  2. Brenner, Grant Hilary (19 February 2018). "When Is Porn Use a Problem?". Psychology Today. Retrieved 18 September 2021.
  3. Ritzenhoff, Karen A.; Hermes, Katherine A. (2009). Sex and Sexuality in a Feminist World. EBSCO ebook academic collection. Cambridge Scholars. p. 102. ISBN 978-1-4438-0426-4.
  4. Grubbs, Joshua B.; Perry, Samuel L.; Grant Weinandy, Jennifer T.; Kraus, Shane W. (19 July 2021). "Porndemic? A Longitudinal Study of Pornography Use Before and During the COVID-19 Pandemic in a Nationally Representative Sample of Americans". Archives of sexual behavior. Springer Science and Business Media LLC. doi:10.1007/s10508-021-02077-7. ISSN 0004-0002. PMC 8288831. PMID 34282505. At baseline, 43.4% of participants reported not having viewed pornography in the past year and 38% of participants reported using pornography, on average, at least once per month (59% of men and 21% of women).
  5. Regnerus, Mark; Gordon, David; Price, Joseph (18 December 2015). "Documenting Pornography Use in America: A Comparative Analysis of Methodological Approaches". The Journal of Sex Research. 53 (7). Informa UK Limited: 873–881. doi:10.1080/00224499.2015.1096886. ISSN 0022-4499. If estimates generated from the RIA or NFSS are more valid, then pornography use is—or perhaps has become—a common and frequent experience among men, with just under half of all men using pornography in an average week. It is also not an uncommon or infrequent occurrence for women, with nearly one in five reporting pornography use in the past week.
  6. Kleinman, Alexis (4 May 2013). "Porn Sites Get More Visitors Than Netflix, Amazon And Twitter Combined". HuffPost. Retrieved 18 September 2021. Sources:
    1. Carroll, Jason S.; Padilla-Walker, Laura M.; Nelson, Larry J.; Olson, Chad D.; McNamara Barry, Carolyn; Madsen, Stephanie D. (2008). "Generation XXX". Journal of Adolescent Research. 23 (1). SAGE Publications: 6–30. doi:10.1177/0743558407306348. ISSN 0743-5584.Blue, Violet (24 July 2009). "Are more women OK with watching porn?". CNN.com. Retrieved 13 July 2022."One in three women watch porn - study - The Courier-Mail". news.com.au. 10 February 2010. Archived from the original on 14 February 2010. Retrieved 13 July 2022.
    2. Edelman, Benjamin (1 January 2009). "Markets: Red Light States: Who Buys Online Adult Entertainment?" (PDF). Journal of Economic Perspectives. 23 (1). American Economic Association: 209–220. doi:10.1257/jep.23.1.209. ISSN 0895-3309."Are the effects of pornography negligible? - UdeMNouvelles". nouvelles.umontreal.ca (in French). 1 December 2009. Archived from the original on 31 January 2013. Retrieved 13 July 2022.
    3. https://web.archive.org/web/20130116164054/https://www.google.com/adplanner/static/top1000/
    4. Hotsheet, Political (25 June 2010). "29% Accessed Porn on Work Computers Last Month - CBS News". Wayback Machine. Retrieved 13 July 2022.Leahy, Michael (2009). Porn @ Work: Exposing the Office's #1 Addiction. Moody Publishers. ISBN 978-1-57567-332-5.
    5. Anthony, Sebastian (4 April 2012). "Just how big are porn sites?". ExtremeTech. Retrieved 13 July 2022.
  7. Buchholz, Katharina (2019-02-11). "Infographic: How Much of the Internet Consists of Porn?". Statista Infographics. Retrieved 2022-08-11.
  8. Goldhill, Olivia (7 March 2016). "Porn is like alcohol—whether it's bad for you depends on who you are". Quartz. Retrieved 18 February 2019.
Articles for deletionThis article was nominated for deletion on 29 November 2021. The result of the discussion was keep.
This article is rated C-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject iconPsychology High‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Psychology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Psychology 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.PsychologyWikipedia:WikiProject PsychologyTemplate:WikiProject Psychologypsychology
HighThis article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject iconPornography Top‑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
TopThis article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject iconSexology and sexuality High‑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
HighThis article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
Note icon
An editor has requested that an image or photograph be added to this article.
WikiProject iconAnthropology High‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Anthropology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Anthropology 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.AnthropologyWikipedia:WikiProject AnthropologyTemplate:WikiProject AnthropologyAnthropology
HighThis article has been rated as High-importance on the importance scale.
WikiProject iconSociology High‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Sociology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of sociology 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.SociologyWikipedia:WikiProject SociologyTemplate:WikiProject Sociologysociology
HighThis article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject iconConservatism Low‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Conservatism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of conservatism 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.ConservatismWikipedia:WikiProject ConservatismTemplate:WikiProject ConservatismConservatism
LowThis article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject iconPolitics Low‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics 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.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics
LowThis article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject iconReligion High‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Religion, a project to improve Misplaced Pages's articles on Religion-related subjects. Please participate by editing the article, and help us assess and improve articles to good and 1.0 standards, or visit the wikiproject page for more details.ReligionWikipedia:WikiProject ReligionTemplate:WikiProject ReligionReligion
HighThis article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
Note icon
An editor has requested that an image or photograph be added to this article.
Text and/or other creative content from this version of Effects of pornography on relationships was merged into Effects of pornography with this edit on 06:30, 24 October 2021. 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.


Archiving icon
Archives

Archive 1


This page has archives. Sections older than 365 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 3 sections are present.

Thoughts

1. The section about higher STD rates for sex workers is not contextualized within the article which seems to be mainly about the consumption of pornography and not the impact on producers (sex workers). Challenges faced by sex workers should be more clearly be delineated in the intro if the article is going to discuss it, sex workers are also impacted by societal views on sex workers and pornography and not only the pornography itself.

2. The intro has this sentence: "Consumption of pornographic material is associated with negative and positive impacts"

Where does the article mention the positive effects? If we don't delve into positive effects in the article then we should just remove that sentence.

3. The intro briefly states "some people may become addicted to it" but no context is provided. Some studies suggest that a small percentage of individuals may experience problematic or compulsive patterns of porn consumption that could be classified as an addiction. However, it's important to note that not everyone who consumes porn will develop an addiction, and people can engage in such behavior without negative consequences. Drocj (talk) 08:58, 29 November 2023 (UTC)


Wiki Edu Assigment: Comm 500 Class , List Of Edits and thoughts

Hello, I realized that we had to outline the changes we made for the wiki instead of putting it just in the edit review/version history

So here is the comprehensive list of changes that I made to reach the most recent version of this Effects of Pornography article: (FROM TOP TO BOTTOM)

  1. Finalized the Lead to encompass the definition of pornography, along with a breakdown of different effects that are going to be discussed in the article
  2. Next to "associations of addiction", i added the fact that theories are going to be discussed in the article also (last little section was kept)
  3. Added " A Few Key Theories" heading, Sexuality Theory umbrella heading, SEXUAL STRATEGIES THEORY, REWARD AND CONDITIONING THEORY, SOCIAL EXCHANGE THEORY.
  4. Social Exchange Theory Model (Picture) was added to break up reading pace.
  5. some words are changed in Sexual Scripting section to improve flow and clarity ( Last small section of Sexual Scripting was untouched)
  6. Added Scripting Framework Section
  7. METHODOLOGY LIMITATIONS HEADING and its contents were removed, did not make sense as methodologies were not mentioned exclusively
  8. " Added a Psychological Effects and its Studies" Section (FIRST PARAGRAPH THAT MENTIONS ADDICTIONS UNTOUCHED) , might need future revision
  9. Added a specific "studies" heading ( second paragraph was untouched and last paragraph of this section was broken up for clarity)
  10. Added a "Psychological Effects" Image
  11. Added Cognitive Effects heading and a few paragraphs to expand the concept
  12. Split the previous paragraph into its own section of Contradicting Views
  13. added a few meanings to the abbreviations ( Withdrawal Symptoms Untouched)
  14. Added a "pornographic control proposals" section title ( contents untouched)
  15. MENTAL BLOCKS heading added and provided a lead paragraph to introduce the specific section topic
  16. added a man and "masculinity" section heading and provided word clarity in its first paragraph ( second paragraph of this section is untouched, this section might need a little bit more sources, did not have time, added citation 39)
  17. added a "women and self-consciousness" section heading, provided clarity to the second paragraph of the section ( FIRST AND THIRD PARAGRAPH UNTOUCHED)
  18. changed a few words around in the last tiny section of the Women's section
  19. EXPANDED both the Delay Discounting and Dehumanization section
  20. Public health section was NOT my addition ( but did improve wording)
  21. changed up the words and improved the flow of the Sexual desires section (first and last paragraph of section was untouched)
  22. Pamela Anderson Line was removed as I felt it didn't fit with the section at all.
  23. Improved wording in Sexual Function section ( also added citation 49 to back claims)
  24. Improved wording in Sexual Satisfaction section ( last paragraph is untouched, welcome to re-check)
  25. removed redundant wording of the first paragraph in sexual preferences section
  26. improved wording and flow for the other parts of this section, although it is split into two fue to it being a little too long
  27. Added Sexual Preferences Image
  28. Added Aggression and Extreme content section (content basically unchanged aside from simplification of wording)
  29. Sexual violence controlled studies section 1st paragraph rewritten for maximum clarity
  30. Meta analysis paragraph and Emily F Rothman paragraph simplified
  31. The DIAGRAM was NOT my addition, might have to be checked for accuracy.
  32. changed a few words in the Ferguson and Hartley paragraph, 5th paragraph UNTOUCHED
  33. tiny sentence in the 6th Paragraph condensed with the Emily F Rothman Paragraph
  34. Epidemiological studies section only simplified but generally untouched
  35. added a Teen Dating Violence study and expanded into a paragraph
  36. added the white ribbon imagery
  37. "pornography is not the cause of Rape" statement removed , it was a stand alone and did not make sense.
  38. improved wording on First paragraph of Effects of reltionships Heading
  39. also improved wording on the first paragraph of Relationship Satisfaction (Second Paragraph Untouched)
  40. improved flow for the other parts of this section
  41. removed redundant wording in the communications section
  42. added a "pornography mirroring and Consent" Section
  43. added citations 115-119 for the consent section
  44. added the symbol of consent image
  45. Changed the Heading of Occupational safety to " Pornographic effects to adult film performers"
  46. added a famous cases section detailing the adult stars that have exited the industry ( citation 121-123)
  47. added the Pornhub image because it is mentioned in the section.
  48. First paragraph and Block quote of Effects on Adolescence Heading Untouched (further research might be needed in the future)
  49. rest of the section have edited words to improve flow

I have been tackling this article for about 2 months for my Wiki Project, I have done all I could in the course of the semester and will probably have some mistakes. I've updated the article with the sources I could find so that they're all backed with some kind of proof. I added pictures as well to break off the text walls for an easier read. I am still a student and will not have perfect judgment as to what is best for the article, but I have done my best to improve it

Thankyou

( should any changes need to be made, please feel free to edit after :) ) Raiyaka (talk) 08:28, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

I have taken a look at the large number of additions you made to the article. Unfortunately, most of them are primary source studies. Misplaced Pages is based upon secondary independent sources, namely books and academic reviews. Primary source studies are problematic because they have not been assessed in the context of the broader scientific literature and are prone to failing replication.
In addition, most of the content you have added is based upon associational studies. Correlation is not causation. An association between poor relationship satisfaction and porn use does not prove that porn reduces relationship satisfaction. It could be that those in unsatisfying relationships are more likely to watch porn.
A lot of this is going to need trimming back. Zenomonoz (talk) 22:52, 9 April 2024 (UTC)
Yup, a WP:RS is WP:CITED that the association between poor relationship satisfaction and porn use only holds for white men (that is: not for women, and not for men of other races). At the Dutch Misplaced Pages such edit was reverted together with deleting the association claim, because the recorded effect was too small.
Being statistically significant and explaining much of the variation are two very different matters. You could have a result which is thoroughly significant, but only explains a few percents of the variation. I didn't do the math, but my two cents are that the Dutchies aren't far off.
That's the problem with porn research in general: causality cannot be shown, and most of the variation simply does not get explained (measured correlations are from small to modest). tgeorgescu (talk) 02:28, 25 April 2024 (UTC)
I think most of this primary source stuff should be trimmed out, we need to replace it with reviews/books. There have been quite a few recently. Zenomonoz (talk) 03:42, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

Categories

@IP because of revert: while porn could incite some mentally unstable men to commit rape, it has the opposite effect upon the vast majority of men. That's why I reverted you. tgeorgescu (talk) 18:01, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

Categories: