Talk:Pornography addiction

Dopamine dependency

Pornography addiction is described as a ‘dopamine dependency’, pornography causes excessive dopamine levels in the brain 2605:59C0:E6:410:F009:F922:8A80:F974 (talk) 03:18, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know what dopamine dependency is supposed to mean. "Dopamine produces addiction" is an old canard. "Dopamine serves many complex functions in the brain, and only kindergarten brain science describes it as an addictive drug." Source: https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/women-who-stray/201701/no-dopamine-is-not-addictive
Also, see WP:BIGMISTAKE: your opinion does not matter, mine does not matter, either. You need WP:MEDRS for your claims.
Unless you can WP:CITE WP:MEDRS to that extent, pornography causes excessive dopamine levels in the brain looks like a completely made up claim. And it is WP:FRINGE and a non sequitur. tgeorgescu (talk) 14:17, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Correct. Zenomonoz (talk) 08:45, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No, the science is clearly on the side of dopamine overload 2605:59C0:1E1:3808:29E9:8E9:1862:BEA9 (talk) 14:39, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
WP:CITE WP:MEDRS to that extent. See also https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/women-who-stray/201701/no-dopamine-is-not-addictive tgeorgescu (talk) 16:09, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
“ This sensitization related to long-term sexual arousal and hyperexcitability may have negative consequences for balance between excitatory and inhibitory neural systems, and due to various neurobiological changes, such as increased dopamine production and corticoid arousal, it may cause uncontrolled hypersexual behavior”Pornography Consumption and Cognitive-Affective Distress
Michal Privara, MA and Petr Bob, PhD 2600:8805:5101:A600:FCBA:DA68:442C:7486 (talk) 20:02, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
See WP:CITIZENDIUM: we don't care about your credentials, but only about your ability to WP:CITE WP:MEDRS. Since DSM-5-TR, ICD-11, and the ASAM manual have spoken, you also have to fulfill WP:ECREE.
See Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Pornography addiction.
Also, from 2022 to 2023 it is an extremely short time for revamping the medical consensus.
The ASAM manual was published in 2024. It is WP:CITED in our article. tgeorgescu (talk) 07:26, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Why do you cite a random blog. 2605:59C0:1E1:3808:80F9:A2D4:86A:F31F (talk) 11:04, 6 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Because the IPs seem to lack basic medical knowledge. The blog would be rather WP:COATRACK inside the article, but it is fine for the talk page. tgeorgescu (talk) 13:32, 6 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
the science is clear-porn use is a dopamine dependency, "Dopamine dysregulation is at the heart of porn addiction, cravings and withdrawal symptoms. Restoring normal dopamine function and sensitivity is a key to porn recovery." dopamine is a drug that "can lead to a chemical dependence' "When a person watches porn, it can trigger a release of dopamine in the brain. This release of dopamine causes the person to feel good and feel pleasure.
"Over time, as a person continues to watch porn, the brain starts associating this action with pleasurable feelings. This association can then create the urge and make a person feel the need to watch it over and over again, even if they want to stop" "Cravings happen when dopamine is triggered over and over again. Watching pornography can cause a surge in dopamine, which in turn causes a desire or appetite for more dopamine release. ' 2605:59C0:E6:410:450A:59B0:5745:5928 (talk) 04:14, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Dependency (i.e. addiction) is a diagnosis belonging to a bygone era of psychiatry. It isn't coming back. So, there will be no porn addiction diagnosis. That ship has sailed since long ago.
And yup, I Googled "Restoring normal dopamine function and sensitivity is a key to porn recovery": it does not come from any WP:RS, let alone WP:MEDRS. It is just claptrap from YBOP.
For public health professionals peddling the dopamine canard looks silly and disreputable.
First, the link between dopamine and addiction is tenuous. Professionals speak of a link between DeltaFosB and addiction. Not about dopamine. FYI, dopamine isn't triggered by pleasure/reward, but by the anticipation of pleasure/reward.
Second, the diagnosis of addiction no longer appears in the DSM for more than fifty years. So, no, APA won't make a special exception for porn addiction.
Advice: stop peddling tentative findings of the neuroscience of the 1960s. WP:NOTDUMB. If you rely on YBOP: Gary Wilson lacked the scientific literacy to navigate such a complex field. That's why he concentrated upon finding every research which could validate his POV, instead of checking the quality of such research. Porn addiction was doomed at Wikipedia since the introduction of the WP:MEDRS guideline. And it was further doomed by the fact that two consecutive editions of the DSM have plonked it.
The deal is this: WP:CITE a WP:MEDRS that the medical orthodoxy accepts the diagnosis of porn addiction. Which you can't do, because the medical orthodoxy doesn't. tgeorgescu (talk) 06:39, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, according to WP:RSN the source is reliable, according to WP:MEDRS.

What does the source say? First, porn addiction is not a recognized disorder. Second, narcissists who watch porn tend to get a disapproving image of their own body, which would explain the rise in cosmetic surgery (such as labiaplasty). They are likely to suffer because of this tainted body image, when surgery will become powerless to improve their bodies (that comes with aging).

Source: Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 453#Pornography addiction. tgeorgescu (talk) 16:11, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

When asked about masturbatory practices, he reported that in the past he had been masturbating vigorously and rapidly while watching pornography since adolescence. The pornography originally consisted mainly of zoophilia, and bondage, domination, sadism, and masochism, but he eventually got habituated to these materials and needed more hardcore pornography scenes, including transgender sex, orgies, and violent sex. He used to buy illegal pornographic movies on violent sex acts and rape and visualized those scenes in his imagination to function sexually with women. He gradually lost his desire and his ability to fantasize and decreased his masturbation frequency.
In conjunction with weekly sessions with a sex therapist, the patient was instructed to avoid any exposure to sexually explicit material, including videos, newspapers, books, and internet pornography.
After 8 months, the patient reported experiencing successful orgasm and ejaculation. He renewed his relationship with that woman, and they gradually succeeded in enjoying good sexual practices. 2605:59C0:1E1:3808:B065:F382:2E75:66C0 (talk) 14:51, 29 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
So, the fact that porn disrupted the dopamine center in the brain isn’t evidence of addiction? Also, there are now tools (eg the Muse headband) that are believed to re-wire the dopamine center in the brain from pornography 2605:59C0:1E1:3808:B065:F382:2E75:66C0 (talk) 14:48, 29 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Until you have a WP:MEDRS to cite, you're just wasting your time here. MrOllie (talk) 14:55, 29 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
“ When asked about masturbatory practices, he reported that in the past he had been masturbating vigorously and rapidly while watching pornography since adolescence. The pornography originally consisted mainly of zoophilia, and bondage, domination, sadism, and masochism, but he eventually got habituated to these materials and needed more hardcore pornography scenes, including transgender sex, orgies, and violent sex. He used to buy illegal pornographic movies on violent sex acts and rape and visualized those scenes in his imagination to function sexually with women. He gradually lost his desire and his ability to fantasize and decreased his masturbation frequency.
In conjunction with weekly sessions with a sex therapist, the patient was instructed to avoid any exposure to sexually explicit material, including videos, newspapers, books, and internet pornography.
After 8 months, the patient reported experiencing successful orgasm and ejaculation. He renewed his relationship with that woman, and they gradually succeeded in enjoying good sexual practices. “ 2605:59C0:1E1:3808:B065:F382:2E75:66C0 (talk) 15:08, 29 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Reports
Unusual masturbatory practice as an etiological factor in the diagnosis and treatment of sexual dysfunction in young men
Gila Bronner et al. J Sex Med. 2014 Jul 2605:59C0:1E1:3808:B065:F382:2E75:66C0 (talk) 15:11, 29 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Case reports don't meet WP:MEDRS. MrOllie (talk) 15:53, 29 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
What will it take to make this article neutral 2605:59C0:1E1:3808:784C:2F83:BCCC:CB52 (talk) 17:43, 29 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It already neutrally summarizes the sources which meet WP:MEDRS. If and when the medical sourcing changes, so will this article. MrOllie (talk) 18:04, 29 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Look, the two APA don't deny that there are certain people who cannot cope with porn and masturbation. They just deny that such problems can be described as an addiction.
So, their problems are real, but the part with "this is an addiction" isn't real. tgeorgescu (talk) 23:13, 29 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Why do I take issue with such suggestions?

Because "porn produces mental disease" is supported by nothing from mainstream medicine. Even in models like CSBD, porn is at most a by-catch symptom and not the underlying cause of the illness. tgeorgescu (talk) 08:55, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I Know What It’s Like to be Addicted to Sex — Dr. Trish Leigh
See here, this is what a “dopamine dependency “ means 2605:59C0:E6:410:0:0:0:A24 (talk) 17:27, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Trish Leigh is not a scientist, she is not published in mainstream scientific journals in respect to her claims about sex addiction.
If it were a recognized disorder, all you'd have to do is WP:CITE the DSM or the MSD Manual. You wouldn't have to cite YouTube videos by people who don't live by publish or perish.
You don't understand something: you're not fighting against me. You're not even fighting against the admins of Wikipedia. You're fighting against mainstream psychiatry. Wikipedia will change its coverage of porn addiction after mainstream psychiatry changes. That's why I had so much success: because you don't have to convince me, or even some admins, you have to convince mainstream psychiatry. tgeorgescu (talk) 19:34, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The only serious support for CSB being an addiction are the papers by Kraus, Voon, and Potenza from 2015 and 2016. If you know any other WP:MEDRS to that effect, WP:CITE them here. Remember: no dodgy journals allowed, and they have to be at least systematic reviews on the MEDRS quality scale. tgeorgescu (talk) 22:54, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
High levels of dopamine from pornography cause people to chase the high. In porn addiction the high level of dopamine results in the brain being linked to the images. As a result the dopamine center becomes desensitized to everyday life this causes ED 2605:59C0:1E1:3808:29E9:8E9:1862:BEA9 (talk) 14:37, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
WP:CITE WP:MEDRS to that extent. See also https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/women-who-stray/201701/no-dopamine-is-not-addictive tgeorgescu (talk) 16:10, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

High libido

Hj the claim that porn addicts simply have high desire has been refuted https://www.yourbrainonporn.com/relevant-research-and-articles-about-the-studies/critiques-of-questionable-debunking-propaganda-pieces/studies-falsify-the-claim-that-sex-porn-addicts-just-have-high-sexual-desire/ here are the studies 2605:59C0:E6:410:7017:D5D7:4A84:85E (talk) 15:42, 5 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

YBOP is not a WP:MEDRS. Not even close.
Also, I don't put all my money on "high desire". As explained above, "preexisting mental illness" seems to be much preferred to "porn is addictive". tgeorgescu (talk) 01:59, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
No it’s the studies that refute this 2600:8805:5386:2800:297F:6B2A:5BAE:1B5 (talk) 13:52, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Which studies (compliant with WP:MEDRS) refute what?
Stated otherwise, APA does not need a new diagnosis (porn addiction), since MDs may diagnose "porn addicts" with the already existing psychiatric diagnoses. It is their collective judgment that the already existing diagnoses are more than enough for tackling the problem.
And I WP:CITED Paula Hall, and Bordoloi et.al., but their POV did not get a lot of traction in mainstream psychiatry.
That is, 25 years after broadband internet, the question "Do teenagers get addicted to porn?" has been answered with FRIN. Mestre-Bach and Potenza said that the evidence about teenagers and PPU is very limited and of little use of psychiatry. tgeorgescu (talk) 16:13, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
A quarter of a century may not be enough to provide definite answers about human sexuality and its mechanisms, and there is nothing to indicate that broadband internet has had any actual effect on sexual behavior. Dimadick (talk) 12:43, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Porn is highly addictive, causes dysfunction of the prefrontal cortex, weakens willpower, causes anxiety, and damages the brain overall. Just because liberal media doesn't want men to stop being enslaved to this garbage, doesn't mean it does not exist. People like you are highly questionable, and have obviously never dealt with a severe porn addiction. 47.232.68.30 (talk) 00:44, 10 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Lol! That's really funny, just because mainstream media and the BILLION dollar porn industry doesn't want to study it or call it out, means NOTHING. You're a brainwashed shill. Porn Is Garbage (talk) 00:51, 10 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
We're not saying that PPU does not exist. That would be lame.
And we're not following "media". We're following mainstream psychiatry. I mean: APA, ASAM and WHO aren't liberal media.
This is a quarrel about parsing words, rather than a quarrel about the reality of the phenomenon. Speaking of the shill: a small number of internet propagandists will shun anything like CSBD, PPU, HVSB, and other mainstream psychiatric diagnoses, and will only accept a diagnosis of "porn addiction". As the ASAM manual (2024) stated, adopting a diagnosis of sexual addiction will have the effect of obscuring other, more germane diagnoses. Quotation: "A premature diagnosis of 'sex addiction' [...]".
And it is not about you vs. liberal media. It isn't about you vs. me, Dimadick, and MrOllie. You're not fighting against Wikipedia, you're fighting against mainstream psychiatry. Porn is highly addictive got rejected by mainstream psychiatry. Wikipedia isn't a PR venue, so you don't win arguments through rhetoric. Wikipedia renders what counts as fact in mainstream science. I'm among the least rhetorically gifted people at this website. But I won hundreds of conflicts. Why? Because I follow mainstream science no matter what. If you want to edit science articles, you have to endorse mainstream science. No ifs and buts. That's a hard requirement. tgeorgescu (talk) 18:58, 12 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Again, the question is: who recognizes the diagnosis of porn addiction?

Thomas Nelson does, because they published Trish Leigh's book about it. Thomas Nelson basically means books for evangelicals.

Routledge has published Paula Hall's book, but in general Routledge published a diversity of views about porn addiction. So, the POV of Routledge can be rendered as: it is possible, but not settled.

Bordoloi et. al. were published by the Missouri State Medical Association. What are their sources for their statements? A web page published by the American Psychiatric Association, which is in its turn based upon a review published by MDPI. The general consensus at Wikipedia is that MDPI is not reliable for making medical claims. I can agree that Bordoloi et. al. are citable, but I have strong doubts about the source of their information. E.g. that MDPI review was published years before DSM-5-TR, but DSM-5-TR did not recognize it as SOTA.

For the rest, neither DSM-5, nor DSM-5-TR, nor ICD-10, nor ICD-11 recognize the existence of porn addiction. DSM-5-TR does not even recognize CSBD. CSBD is not an addiction. tgeorgescu (talk) 02:24, 3 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

And Cureus does. But Cureus does not pretend to have peer-review. It claims that articles should get reviewed after their publication. This makes Cureus lower in the pecking order than many dodgy journals which do claim to be peer-reviewed. tgeorgescu (talk) 23:06, 6 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

What I found about Trish Leigh's book is this: "This is a massive issue affecting millions of people, and it’s not something we can afford to ignore. Mind Over Explicit Matter is a crucial resource for anyone involved in ministry or church leadership who wants to address this problem within their community. " [1]. tgeorgescu (talk) 20:07, 15 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

#Overview: recognition of the diagnosis of addiction: POV wording

Disclosure: No, I do not wish to contend with the obviously "controversial" application and "unscientific" labelling of pornography addiction, rather I wish to reduce some of the inconsistent wordings as it is analysed in the overview. As always I am anticipating Tudor to answer me by (deflecting it admanantly like here offering a quote only to concede a reply later). This is an edit request that concerns the tone given in wikivoice in the #Overview: recognition of the diagnosis of addiction (that section name is itself very unwieldy). It is my view that it seems very informal and unencyclopedic as even so-called WP:EX editors can be completely fallible. I propose it be converted into chart form or prose instead of the sectional mess it is (seperating WP:VIEWPOINTs seemingly ordinally) or suggest removing it entirely. My specific concern is that the wording of the sections is outwardly POV; for e.g: "Neutral, maybe in the future, etc." which is lazy wording and wholly unencyclopedic. It should be either addressed with authority or be incisive and succint, instead of stating possibilities in wikivoice. Another example, starting with a "Note:", and then mentioning "HVSB" which is not mentioned or explained anywhere else; "are not addictions" in the second subsection where "addictions" is italicized for the sake of being emphatic in a fucking mainspace article, this is NOT an essay, such a formatting is unacceptable. Then in the same line "At least according to the sources above" which is dubiously appealing to authority instead of attributing it to the specific WP:RS. It should be addressed and changed some way. I realize it is an unprotected page but I do not wish in any way to object with the so-called "arbiters of verifiability" such as user:tgeorgescu so I want for an uninvolved editor specifically who does not try to immediately assume my bad faith - obviously from my being a "low-caste" IP (who is also unaware of wikipedia's stance on "truth" as my averring of such an "epistemologic" policy being correct would be ingenuine). 182.185.42.137 (talk) 11:45, 19 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm open to suggestions from other editors. It was an empirical solution to editors bickering about "recognized by who" and "not recognized by who". In the end, the whole section could be dropped.
Another issue, the appeal to authority is not a sophism by itself, see WP:VERECUNDIAM.
See WP:NPOVN. tgeorgescu (talk) 19:28, 19 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Steele et al supports the addiction model see
‘High desire’, or ‘merely’ an addiction? A response to Steele et al.
, MD 2600:8805:5386:2800:8069:5430:55FF:4B79 (talk) 20:47, 19 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
A response to Steele et al. does not mean the opinion of Steele et al. It means Hilton's opinion, so it gets rendered as Hilton's opinion. He does not get to put words in the mouths of Steele et al.
Look, as far as I'm concerned, Steele et al. can be removed. But that also entails that Hilton's article will be removed.
I'm not the one arguing that primary studies or opinion pieces based upon a single primary study should be included. tgeorgescu (talk) 21:43, 19 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That is an essay you wrote, and I guessed that from the way it was written. Anyways, my point was that it did not give any weight to the recognition of CSBD, HVSB and PPU despite listing them under people who do not. It still does not and it is not clear why it must be given as a note as it stands to reason. And I am still not sure what "HVSB" is. The NPOV noticeboard seems to raise a few good points and it is good that you made a centralized discussion because as far as I can see other editors are giving varying ideas to tackle this, I think converting it to prose with further explanation and quotes given in-refs will be better and then equally give clarification for the "WP:FRINGE" views 182.185.42.137 (talk) 06:47, 20 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Copy Edit of the whole article

pornography viewing also -> pornography viewing, also
Neuropsychopharmacological and psychological researches on -> Neuropsychopharmacological and psychological research on
2015 and 2021 have concluded -> 2015 and 2021 has concluded
into the umbrella -> under the umbrella
too few -> too little
Association upon its website -> Association on its website
a MDPI paper -> an MDPI paper
as heterogenous -> as heterogeneous
sexual behaviours -> sexual behaviors
behaviour, and not -> behavior and not
which states that -> that states that
especially antagonist ->  especially antagonistic
which cancel each -> that cancel each
is a non-legislative organization which claims -> a non-legislative organization that
PornFree reddit group which -> PornFree Reddit group that
Christian inter-denominational -> Christian interdenominational
and also are -> and are also
Professor of Community Health Sciences at the -> professor of community health sciences at the The Other Karma (talk) 11:20, 21 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Partly done: I've implemented the grammatically correct proposals, making any additional edits that were necessary. — Alex26337 (talk) 16:23, 25 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Controversial

@Joseijn: Read the WP:SOURCES: "porn addiction" is controversial by itself. tgeorgescu (talk) 23:51, 3 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Addition

Hi, please add, this sentence at the end of the prevalence section, the prevalence section is the right place, since in this case, as in the individual studies mentioned in the review (Table 3), coping affects the prevalence (greater levels of pornography use). But an own predictors section would also be fine for me:
Coping with negative emotions through pornography commonly predicts problematic pornography use.[1] Never mind, journal fails MEDRS (Journal is not in the MEDLINE Index.) The Other Karma (talk) 13:26, 7 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Technically, there could be exceptions from MEDLINE indexation, but they have to be from very reputable journals. tgeorgescu (talk) 02:53, 9 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, thx for the information. The Other Karma (talk) 04:25, 9 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Grubbs, Joshua B.; Wright, Paul J.; Braden, Abby L.; Wilt, Joshua A.; Kraus, Shane W. (2019-04-03). "Internet pornography use and sexual motivation: a systematic review and integration". Annals of the International Communication Association. 43 (2): 9. doi:10.1080/23808985.2019.1584045. ISSN 2380-8985.

MEDRS

@RowanJ LP: According to WP:MEDRS, papers from MDPI are unusable for making medical claims. WP:PRIMARY medical studies are also unusable to that extent. tgeorgescu (talk) 02:53, 9 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Svedin et. al.

They say "repeated cross-sectional surveys...". How is that a WP:PRIMARY medical study? tgeorgescu (talk) 08:40, 11 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Similar to “similarly, a scientific paper documenting a new experiment conducted by the author is a primary source for the outcome of that experiment.” Svedin et al conducted all those 3 surveys. ~2025-32511-35 (talk) 09:03, 11 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Rewrite

That topic is a hard nut to crack.
Please update the Treatment section with that rewrite:

Treatment

Among the tested treatment methods are:[1]

  • ACT
  • CBT
  • CBT + Fluoxetine
  • CBT + Paroxetine
  • CBT + Desvenlafaxine
  • CBT + Naltrexone
  • CBT + Naltrexone + Fluvoxamine
  • Naltrexone + Sertraline (Sertraline for psychiatric comorbiditys)
  • Naltrexone
  • Paroxetine and Naltrexone
  • Paroxetine
  • Citalopram
  • Nalmefene
  • Online self-help intervention, based on motivational interviewing, CBT, mindfulness and social psychological interventions
  • Cognitive analytic therapy
  • Mindfulness-based relapse prevention
  • Meditation
  • Psychotherapy (Non-blaming Chance and Action Approach)
  • Structural family therapy
  • Eclectic-integrative psychotherapy approach (combining cognitive, behavioral, and psychodynamic therapy)
  • Person-centered mixed psychotherapy approach (individual and in group, combining CBT + psychodynamic psychotherapy)
  • Couple therapy + individual therapy
  • Brief internet-delivered intervention with the application of behavior change techniques (in line with the self-determination theory)
  • rTMS + Propranolol (Propranolol for social anxiety symptoms) + Psychological counseling

All of them were able to reduce or stop consumption of pornography. Most treatments are based on case reports or quasi‑experimental studies; only online self‑help, Citalopram, Paroxetine, Naltrexone, and ACT were tested in RCTs. Evidence quality is generally low, focused mainly on cis‑heterosexual men, with limited reporting on side effects, among the reported ones are:[1]

  • CBT + Paroxetine (20 mg/day): temporary libido reduction and delayed ejaculation, resolved after ~10 weeks.
  • Naltrexone: Treatment discontinued due to anhedonia
  • Citalopram: frequent delayed ejaculation.
  • Meditation: some participants found it unpleasant.
  • ACT (self‑help book): only ~50% completed; often considered too long or redundant.
  • Online self‑help (MI, CBT, mindfulness): 11% dropout, declining module completion, but overall positive evaluations.
  • Paroxetine + Naltrexone: some discontinued due to adverse effects sedation (29% Paroxetine, 38% Naltrexone), weight gain (17%, 4%, 12% placebo), erectile dysfunction (13%, 0%, 8%), apathy (8% each), orgasmic dysfunction (3% Paroxetine). No serious medication‑related effects occurred.[1]

Some clinicians and support organizations recommend voluntary use of Internet content-control software, internet monitoring, or both, to manage online pornography use.[63][64][65] Sex researcher Alvin Cooper and colleagues suggested several reasons for using filters as a therapeutic measure, including curbing accessibility that facilitates problematic behavior and encouraging clients to develop coping and relapse prevention strategies.[63] Cognitive therapist Mary Anne Layden suggested that filters may be useful in maintaining environmental control.[65] Internet behavior researcher David Delmonico stated that, despite their limitations, filters may serve as a "frontline of protection."[64]

Comments about the current text:
The sentence, "Cognitive behavioural therapy has been suggested as a possible effective treatment for pornography addiction based on its success with internet addicts, though no clinical trials have been performed to assess effectiveness among pornography addicts as of 2012." can be removed as it my text has that implicitly, and it doesn't provide any meaningful information. The sentence "Studies of those with non-paraphilic expressions of hypersexuality have hypothesized that various mood disorders, as defined in the DSM, may occur more frequently in sexually compulsive men." isn't related to porn, and the sentence "Compulsive sexual behaviour has been treated with antidepressants including selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs) and serotonin–norepinephrine reuptake inhibitors (SNRIs), naltrexone (a medication used to inhibit reward mechanisms in opioid or alcohol addictions), mood stabilizers, and antiandrogens." is unsourced, and can therefore be deleted. The Other Karma (talk) 14:19, 5 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

From your source all interventions, with the exception of ACT (which received a “low” grade), were rated as presenting “very low” quality of the evidence. that being said I think the most appropriate way of writting this would be "the most commonly researched interventions are CBT such as ..." and mention that some medications have been tried but that the evidence is low. Dedicating this much detail to treatment when there is not much evidence is undue weight. IntentionallyDense (Contribs) 03:37, 6 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with you ID. I am unsure about the 'treatment' section already. The idea of 'treating' one with medication because they have religious beliefs discordant with pornography viewing, which is then turned into some shame 'addiction' belief, feels a bit... off. Zenomonoz (talk) 09:49, 6 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, thank you, I overlooked undue weight. I thought I said that implicitly, by noting CBT and the variants multiple times (List 1). Regarding Zenomonoz's feedback, something similar has been noted in another review, that I haven't incoperated so far, but the treatment here are mainly about reducing use not shame. And that topic has been researched by Grubbs, same issue here. I'll prepare a new version of the text, thank you for the feedback! The Other Karma (talk) 13:28, 6 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
PPU does exist, pornography addiction doesn't. And it is okay to treat PPU. tgeorgescu (talk) 14:44, 6 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ a b c Roza, Thiago Henrique; Noronha, Lucas Tavares; Shintani, Augusto Ossamu; Massuda, Raffael; Lobato, Maria Inês Rodrigues; Kessler, Felix Henrique Paim; Passos, Ives Cavalcante (2024-02-01). "Treatment Approaches for Problematic Pornography Use: A Systematic Review". Archives of Sexual Behavior. 53 (2): 20, 25. doi:10.1007/s10508-023-02699-z. ISSN 1573-2800.

Rewritte New Version

The most commonly researched interventions are psychological treatments, including ACT, ACT self-help intervention based on the book “Get Out of Your Mind and Into Your Life”, CBT, Mindfulness-based relapse prevention, meditation, couple interventions, Cognitive analytic therapy, Non-blaming Chance and Action Approach, Structural family therapy, Couple therapy + individual therapy as well as mixed psychological approaches namely Brief internet-delivered intervention with the application of behavior change techniques, rTMS + Propranolol for social anxiety symptoms + Psychological counseling, Person-centered mixed psychotherapy approach (individual and in group, combining CBT + psychodynamic psychotherapy), Online self-help intervention, based on motivational interviewing, CBT, mindfulness and social psychological interventions, Eclectic-integrative psychotherapy. Pharmacological treatments included naltrexone, nalmefene, selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs) and serotonin and norepinephrine reuptake inhibitors (SNRIs). Several studies reported the use of a combination of psychological and pharmacological strategies (CBT with Fluoxentine/ Paroxentine/Devenlafaxine/Naltrexone and Naltrexone with Fluvoxamine).[1]

All of them were able to reduce or stop consumption of pornography. Most treatments are based on case reports or quasi‑experimental studies, and are based on CBT; only online self‑help, Citalopram, Paroxetine, Naltrexone, and ACT were tested in RCTs. Evidence quality is generally low, focused mainly on cis‑heterosexual men, with limited reporting on side effects, among the reported ones are:[1]

  • CBT + Paroxetine (20 mg/day): temporary libido reduction and delayed ejaculation, resolved after ~10 weeks.
  • Naltrexone: Treatment discontinued due to anhedonia
  • Citalopram: frequent delayed ejaculation.
  • Meditation: some participants found it unpleasant.
  • ACT (self‑help book): only ~50% completed; often considered too long or redundant.
  • Online self‑help (MI, CBT, mindfulness): 11% dropout, declining module completion, but overall positive evaluations.
  • Paroxetine + Naltrexone: some discontinued due to adverse effects sedation (29% Paroxetine, 38% Naltrexone), weight gain (17%, 4%, 12% placebo), erectile dysfunction (13%, 0%, 8%), apathy (8% each), orgasmic dysfunction (3% Paroxetine). No serious medication‑related effects occurred.[1]

The Other Karma (talk) 14:47, 9 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want made. Please detail the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Theeverywhereperson talk here 11:01, 25 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I am far from an expert, but why would propranolol be helpful in this case? It is a frequently-used performance-enhancing substance, commonly used by sportspeople in high-accuracy related sports (archery, shooting, golf, and snooker), musicians, actors, and public speakers. Dimadick (talk) 11:00, 26 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
It got used against social axiety, not against PPU. For why dont know, it not my job in Wikipedia. You might want to read the underlying study for more details. The Other Karma (talk) 13:26, 26 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  1. ^ a b c Roza, Thiago Henrique; Noronha, Lucas Tavares; Shintani, Augusto Ossamu; Massuda, Raffael; Lobato, Maria Inês Rodrigues; Kessler, Felix Henrique Paim; Passos, Ives Cavalcante (2024-02-01). "Treatment Approaches for Problematic Pornography Use: A Systematic Review". Archives of Sexual Behavior. 53 (2): 20, 25. doi:10.1007/s10508-023-02699-z. ISSN 1573-2800.
allikas: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Pornography_addiction