Talk:Effects of pornography

Can be healthy

@Avatar317: Even in compulsive use of porn, porn is not deemed to be the cause of the health problem, which is attributed to preexisting mental illness. So, yes, there are no studies which have shown that porn itself is unhealthy (as in porn consumption). tgeorgescu (talk) 14:05, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

I agree with your statement above. I just changed it because otherwise it sounds like porn is a recommended thing for health, like exercise and sufficient sleep. ---Avatar317^(talk) 21:20, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

Cigarettes can be healthy, too 198.145.122.38 (talk) 23:06, 2 August 2025 (UTC)

Cite a study that says porn is healthy 198.145.122.38 (talk) 23:13, 2 August 2025 (UTC)

The source is already WP:CITED, so I don't understand your argument. Again, some people cannot cope with porn, this is not being disputed. The scientists answered the question if porn is unhealthy for the vast majority of its watchers, and their conclusion is that watching porn can be healthy. I'm not citing my own opinion, since I am not part of this dispute. That is, the WP:MEDRS stated that watching porn in moderation can be healthy. tgeorgescu (talk) 00:04, 3 August 2025 (UTC)

How do you pick which studies you cite? If there are two pubmed articles one says porn is bad for the brain and another that says that it is healthy on what basis do you pick 2605:59C0:1E1:3808:70C3:FB40:B827:CC84 (talk) 10:44, 10 October 2025 (UTC)

Read WP:MEDRS: systematic reviews indexed for MEDLINE, or higher quality sources (e.g. medical treatises or consensus statements by the two APA). tgeorgescu (talk) 12:34, 10 October 2025 (UTC)

This is flatly contradicted by neuroscience. 2605:59C0:1E1:3808:24F8:3BE2:DAC7:39D7 (talk) 16:57, 8 September 2025 (UTC)

Again, there is no such recognized diagnosis as porn addiction, so MDs have to provide a really existing and recognized diagnosis. That means that unless something changes, my claim is true by default. CSBD is not a recognized diagnosis because ICD-11 does not apply. Making ICD-11 applicable is a political decision, which is left to individual countries.

Further, WP:CITE WP:MEDRS for your claims, we got tired of venting your personal opinions. tgeorgescu (talk) 17:18, 8 September 2025 (UTC)

“ In couples where only one partner used pornography, we found more problems related to arousal” Daneback K, Traeen B, Månsson SA. Use of pornography in a random sample of Norwegian heterosexual couples. Arch Sex Behav. 2009 Oct;38(5):746-53. doi: 10.1007/s10508-008-9314-4. Epub 2008 Mar 15. PMID: 18343988.

“ Higher frequencies of SEM use were associated with less sexual and relationship satisfaction” Associations between young adults' use of sexually explicit materials and their sexual preferences, behaviors, and satisfaction

Elizabeth M Morgan. J Sex Res. 2011 Nov-Dec. 2605:59C0:1E1:3808:24F8:3BE2:DAC7:39D7 (talk) 17:25, 8 September 2025 (UTC)

Wright and Herbenick (2022): the depreciation of relation satisfaction applies only to white men, and even for them the correlation is rather low: beta for white men only is -0.27 (meaning small effect).

WP:PRIMARY medical studies aren't WP:MEDRS by definition. So, you have WP:CITED 0 (zero) MEDRS. tgeorgescu (talk) 23:46, 8 September 2025 (UTC)

Rofl! So a product that 1) desensitizes the brain,2) is proven to cause depression and anxiety , has contributed to lower rates of marriage and birth, contributes to sexual assault: and is recognized as a risk factor for suicide can be healthy 2605:59C0:1E1:3808:1C03:93B8:5FE5:E519 (talk) 10:30, 14 September 2025 (UTC)

It has been shown to cause a negative brain performance pattern 2605:59C0:1E1:3808:1C03:93B8:5FE5:E519 (talk) 10:39, 14 September 2025 (UTC)

Your opinions are supported by ipse dixit, not by WP:MEDRS. Wikipedia has no use for your own musings.

Ventilating your personal opinions has to stop. I have reported it at WP:ANI.

is recognized as a risk factor for suicide—marriage is a risk factor for suicide, divorce is a risk factor for suicide, being fired is a risk factor for suicide, using social media is a risk factor for suicide, watching sad movies is a risk factor for suicide, etc. tgeorgescu (talk) 16:26, 15 September 2025 (UTC)

Actually, marriage is associated with a lower suicide risk.

https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10594900/

The study you cited is only one study and, per policy, is therefore not reliable and should generally not be used.

Moreover, to say it is "healthy" is misleading because it is only really discussing stress relief.

Just because there isn't an "addiction" diagnosis in the DSM doesn't make it healthy. The review of the studies shows definitively that it is not healthy. PerseusMeredith (talk) 18:13, 15 September 2025 (UTC)

Wright and Herbenick (2022) is a meta-analysis, so a WP:SECONDARY study by definition. It is therefore compliant with WP:MEDRS. Arch Sex Behav Currently indexed for MEDLINE.

To be more explicit, WP:MEDRS bans WP:PRIMARY studies from making medical claims (all medical claims have to rely upon WP:SECONDARY or WP:TERTIARY studies). It does not ban "single studies", whatever that means. tgeorgescu (talk) 18:55, 15 September 2025 (UTC)

No, it wasn't. It's one survey of 750 graduate students. In fact, it even says that meta-analytics associate with lower relational study. It certainly doesn't suggest that this is "healthy." The article should be fixed to comply with what the science actually says.

Recent meta-analytic and other large-scale multi-sample studies have established that pornography use is generally associated with lower relational satisfaction. Nevertheless, much remains unknown about the potential boundary conditions of this relationship. Using data from a campus-representative probability sample of more than 750 graduate students in a committed romantic relationship, this exploratory study examined whether the association between more frequent pornography consumption and lower relational satisfaction was moderated by gender, sexual orientation, race, relational length, religious participation, and moral disapproval of pornography.

https://psycnet.apa.org/record/2022-97824-001 PerseusMeredith (talk) 15:08, 16 September 2025 (UTC)

You're correct. The meta-analysis is Wright, Paul J.; Tokunaga, Robert S.; Kraus, Ashley; Klann, Elyssa (2017). "Pornography Consumption and Satisfaction: A Meta-Analysis: Pornography and Satisfaction" (PDF). Human Communication Research. 43 (3): 315–343. doi:10.1111/hcre.12108. Retrieved 16 September 2025. Which has an r squared of 0.01. That is, it explained almost nothing of the variation.

Is the glass half full or half empty? In this case the glass is 99% empty. A theory which only explains 1% of the variation is ridiculous.

I'm not saying that Wright et al. is ridiculous. Without their paper, we wouldn't know that the theory is ridiculous. tgeorgescu (talk) 06:05, 17 September 2025 (UTC)

REDFLAG

This article has a big WP:REDFLAG. The article Effects of smoking during pregnancy clearly states that smoking is bad for pregnancy and health. This article should be written like the smoking articles on the website. Porn use causes: depression adhd errectile dysfunction social isolation a loss of general life pleasure shrinking of the brain Depression loss of focus wikipedia is bound by neutrality to report this science 198.145.122.13 (talk) 00:58, 6 July 2025 (UTC)

Brain structure and functional connectivity associated with pornography consumption: the brain on por

Karim NAHA, Osman MA, Abdelmonaem YMM, El-Ashry AM. Effects of porn addiction on mental health and personality of nursing students: a cross-sectional study in Egypt. BMC Nurs. 2025 Apr 13;24(1):414. doi: 10.1186/s12912-025-02918-z. PMID: 40223082; PMCID: PMC11993995

Mehmood Qadri H, Waheed A, Munawar A, Saeed H, Abdullah S, Munawar T, Luqman S, Saffi J, Ahmad A, Babar MS. Physiological, Psychosocial and Substance Abuse Effects of Pornography Addiction: A Narrative Review. Cureus. 2023 Jan 12;15(1):e33703. doi: 10.7759/cureus.33703. PMID: 36793815; PMCID: PMC9922938. 198.145.122.13 (talk) 01:07, 6 July 2025 (UTC)

The standard for inclusion is WP:MEDRS: only systematic reviews indexed for MEDLINE, and higher quality sources may make medical claims in the voice of Wikipedia. That means that primary studies get rejected out of hand.

Cureus is a dodgy journal, it has no peer-review. Also, it's not indexed for MEDLINE. It will publish anything that remotely looks like medical research. tgeorgescu (talk) 04:37, 12 July 2025 (UTC)

Revert

@ZimZalaBim: Mestre-Bach and Potenza are not indexed for MEDLINE. But Thimm‐Kaiser and Keyes are. And they seem a systematic review. So WP:MEDRS-compliant. I mean: even if their paper is very recent, the indexation for MEDLINE won't go away. tgeorgescu (talk) 05:48, 12 July 2025 (UTC)

I removed this because I don't see how it tells the reader anything useful. If they said X does NOT cause Y, so FRIN for the cause of Y, that would be informing the reader of at least SOMETHING. I don't see how "We've analyzed lots of studies, and we have nothing to report" is elucidative of anything. ---Avatar317^(talk) 05:40, 13 July 2025 (UTC)

It tells the reader that, "The evidence to substantiate these assertions remains preliminary" (causality cannot be shown).. That is substantive information, and something that the reader cannot determine from reading the article without that sentence and citation present. Mathglot (talk) 07:43, 13 July 2025 (UTC)

Okay, about Potenza: he gets WP:CITED a lot about porn addiction, so we may presume he is a stakeholder to such a dispute. And he is not opposed to the concept of porn addiction, but candidly admits that the evidence for it is not there yet.

About the other paper: "causality cannot be shown" is an important conclusion, especially due to claims that easy porn access due to the broadband internet produces porn addiction. We are in the year 25 after broadband internet.

I think the message is loud and clear: "We searched for evidence for porn addiction/nefarious effects of porn on teenagers and could not find any." So, yeah, when the conclusion of the research is FRIN, it denotes inability to find evidence. It's the ultimate admission that the claim being researched cannot be substantiated. tgeorgescu (talk) 17:00, 13 July 2025 (UTC)

Ok, but can we please state those things EXPLICITLY in the added sentences? This was added to the section on "sexual violence" - that's not porn addiction. And what were the assertions that cannot be substantiated?

I'm ok with stating "there is no evidence of X" but that's not what the additions stated.

Can you please re-word the addition so it is clear what we have learned, because my problem was that a reader would just be confused by that statement. ---Avatar317^(talk) 19:11, 13 July 2025 (UTC)

I have performed the edits.

And, if someone is asking: PPU does exist, I have never denied it. I just deny that it fits the diagnosis of addiction. tgeorgescu (talk) 02:45, 14 July 2025 (UTC)

RSN

@IP: See Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Effects of pornography.

I don't exactly disagree with their message, but WP:PRIMARY studies are a way of WP:GAME.

Frontiers is a weak source. See WP:RSP.

So, I think that using primary studies opens a can of worms: even if the three sources could be considered acceptable, it opens a door to others citing primary studies, which would deteriorate the quality of the article. tgeorgescu (talk) 01:59, 29 September 2025 (UTC)

Hasn’t the article been full of primary studies before the recent additions? For 1 example, I just scrolled to a random spot and found this: “According to a 2022 study among German medical students, "Male students who did not experience a sexual transmitted disease (82.9%) and did not cheat on their partner (68.0%) consumed pornography more frequently". The study concludes "the results of this analysis show that the consumption of pornographic material is highly common among young German medical students" (meaning both male and female)”.https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9252028

What determines if a primary source meets the bar for inclusion and dueness? Paste 2601:282:8903:D810:9901:AEC2:38E1:DDBF (talk) 03:03, 29 September 2025 (UTC)

Yup, if it were up to me, I would remove all primary studies from the article. And that's probably what should be done. tgeorgescu (talk) 03:05, 29 September 2025 (UTC)

The meta analysis of 21 papers and 46,000+ n size show an increase in loneliness, depression, extramarital affairs, neuroticism, compulsivity, poor self-esteem, poor mental health, etc...

https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10277752/ PerseusMeredith (talk) 16:43, 10 October 2025 (UTC)

Those are not the conclusions of the review, but simply statements made by primary medical studies.

One of the findings of the review is: "our theory that problematic pornography consumption was associated with other addictive disorders and cluster B personality traits was not supported".

Also, being published in Cureus means lack of peer review. Cureus is a dodgy journal.

So, I would like to posit that conclusion, but the source isn't compliant with WP:MEDRS. I agree with their finding, but that's not the criterion for inclusion. tgeorgescu (talk) 17:47, 10 October 2025 (UTC)

Between here and RSN the consensus is primary sources should not be used unless there is a particularly good reason to do so. In accordance with that consensus I have removed the primary sources from this article (although I may have missed some). This article still suffers from WP:SYNTH, editorializing, and misstating its sources. Some of the secondary sources are also inappropriate, but I just focused on removing the primary sources. ເສລີພາບ (talk) 03:00, 12 October 2025 (UTC)

Agree with this. Zenomonoz (talk) 03:05, 12 October 2025 (UTC)

It is not just a matter of synthesis. I think we are using sources about specific geographic areas to draw general conclusions. The article uses Berl Kutchinsky's 1973 study on pornography and the decrease of sex crimes in Denmark, in a part of the text which speaks about the decrease of sex crimes in general. We don't even mention Denmark in that section of the article. We are also using a 1986 "review of epidemiological studies" by Neil Malamuth to draw conclusions about "general sexual callousness" in men. But Malamuth is describing statistic findings in samples of men in Canada, and in college-aged men during the mid-1980s. While the text explains (with sources) some of the methodological problems with Malamuth's work, Malamuth himself was not talking about the sexual attitudes of the wider population. Dimadick (talk) 06:35, 12 October 2025 (UTC)

I’m not sure why you did this after only a couple of hours an hardly any comments. The use of primary sources in the policy is to be avoided but it is not prohibited. Especially since this is an emerging are of study. The article now does not reflect the growing body of scientific research and is misleading that pornography is not harmful. The relationship section in particular has virtually no sources for its claims.

I am opposed to these changes. PerseusMeredith (talk) 09:48, 12 October 2025 (UTC)

Partly agree: primary studies are not banned outright, but they can't make medical claims on their own. Citing WP:PRIMARY sources makes the article extremely prone to WP:GAME.

Wright, Paul J.; Tokunaga, Robert S.; Kraus, Ashley; Klann, Elyssa (2017). "Pornography Consumption and Satisfaction: A Meta-Analysis: Pornography and Satisfaction" (PDF). Human Communication Research. 43 (3): 315–343. doi:10.1111/hcre.12108. Retrieved 16 September 2025. It has explained 1% of the variation. Advice: find another theory!

is misleading that pornography is not harmful—you're begging the question. Yes, some people can't cope with porn, but we don't know that pornography is harmful. Nobody knows that, since WP:BESTSOURCES don't know it. tgeorgescu (talk) 15:00, 12 October 2025 (UTC)

It's been weeks of people being in general agreement that primary sources shouldn't be used unless they have a particularly good reason. No one wanted to spend hours actually reading and removing them though. Virtually every primary source I removed was clearly being used very inappropriately:

• The consumption of pornography has been shown to have an impact on sexual risk-taking, including less frequent usage of condoms and birth control, as well as more casual sexual encounters.
  • Sourced to an online survey of 200 Germans which found that people who believed porn to be a source of sexual information used condoms less, while those who didn't believe porn to be a source of sexual information had no effect.
• Even though men and women have significant differences in terms of their sexual mood, behavior and overall porn consumption, Their brain activity would prove to be similar to each other. Both gender's brain activity is nearly identical to each other when consuming pornography, suggesting that men and women experience similar arousal effects due to pornographic exposure.
  • This poorly written passage is cited to 293 students at Ohio State being asked questions while hooked up to a non-functioning polygraph machine. There wasn't even any mention of brain activity.

I am open to discussing individual primary studies that people want to use selectively, but the purpose of Wikipedia isn't to cover emerging research, it is to cover established knowledge (or lack thereof) to a general audience. Most psyche surveys cannot be replicated, and collecting a bunch of them here only misleads our readership. ເສລີພາບ (talk) 15:42, 12 October 2025 (UTC)

About WP:GAME: as a rule of thumb, I don't read WP:PRIMARY studies. Makes it very easy for my opponents to peddle such studies. Also, experienced Wikipedians generally don't waste their time with primary studies. Making very easy for their opponents to game the system, if primary studies are allowed.

Ley, Prause and Finn said that 90% of the papers about sex addiction are completely craps, since either they have no empirical data or there is no responsible statistical processing of empirical data. Source: Ley, David; Prause, Nicole; Finn, Peter (2014). "The Emperor Has No Clothes: A Review of the 'Pornography Addiction' Model". Current Sexual Health Reports. 6 (2): 94–105. doi:10.1007/s11930-014-0016-8. ISSN 1548-3584. Retrieved 12 October 2025. In other words, most publications that might be relevant for VSS addiction models contain no data, and those that contain data generally are weak scientifically.

"Pornography addiction" was not included in the recently revised Diagnostic and Statistical Manual because of a lack of scientific data. Fewer than two in every five research articles (37 percent) about high frequency sexual behavior describe it as being an addiction. Only 27 percent (13 of 49) of articles on the subject contained actual data, while only one related psychophysiological study appeared in 2013. Ley's review article highlights the poor experimental designs, methodological rigor and lack of model specification of most studies surrounding it.

— https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2014/02/140212153252.htm

Quoted by tgeorgescu (talk) 18:16, 12 October 2025 (UTC)

I co-sign everything you said. Zenomonoz (talk) 07:44, 13 October 2025 (UTC)

Since the two APA don't claim that porn is harmful, it is epistemically irresponsible to claim that porn is harmful. tgeorgescu (talk) 15:03, 13 October 2025 (UTC)

Prause and Ley are not reliable sources and their article is over 11 years old. They are activists with an agenda. Besides, their article primarily deals with addiction while the wiki article is "effects of pornography." Below is a meta analysis of the effects of PORNOGRAPHY.

Overall meta-analysis indicated significant positive correlations between pornographic consumption and both anxiety (COR=0.16, 95%CI: 0.08; 0.25) and depression (COR=0.24, 95%CI: 0.15; 0.32).

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/395203105_Effects_of_pornographic_content_consumption_on_anxiety_and_depression_A_systematic_review_and_meta-analysis_Preprint PerseusMeredith (talk) 21:19, 13 October 2025 (UTC)

It's a preprint, no journal is mentioned so, no, it isn't peer-reviewed. Therefore, it fails WP:MEDRS.

And there is of course a difference between "porn is harmless" and "there is no evidence that porn is harmful".

Besides, they reported a correlation coefficient of 0.24. If that gets squared, it gives 0.0576. So, no, it isn't a big effect. They have explained less than 6% of the variation.

0.22^2=0.0484, so about young people, they explained less than 5% of the variation.

A correlation coefficient of 0.16 means the correlation is ridiculously weak.

Have they shown causality? No. They are making policy recommendations based upon correlations from weak to very weak. In other words, porn could have a weak influence upon anxiety and depression.

E.g., I could cite Binnie, James; Reavey, Paula (2 April 2020). "Development and implications of pornography use: a narrative review". Sexual and Relationship Therapy. 35 (2): 178–194. doi:10.1080/14681994.2019.1635250. ISSN 1468-1994. Retrieved 13 October 2025.

But since it is not indexed for MEDLINE, I'll pass. It's not even indexed for PubMed.

Morals: I would like to see the preprint published in a journal indexed for MEDLINE, since if we admit that pornography is harmful, it shows it is harmful only to a slight extent. And there is the competing hypothesis, namely that depression and anxiety make people more lonely, and thus more likely to consume porn. tgeorgescu (talk) 14:34, 16 October 2025 (UTC)

You are right, of course, correlation does not imply causation.

@ເສລີພາບ: Thanks for removing the mis-used/mis-summarized primary studies! ---Avatar317^(talk) 22:43, 16 October 2025 (UTC)

Yup, the preprint does not deny that, it recognizes it upfront. tgeorgescu (talk) 00:02, 17 October 2025 (UTC)

Primary sources

GenoV84, it seems you are adding primary source studies [1][2] etc? These are not WP:MEDRS compliant, we need to use reviews and secondary sources. Zenomonoz (talk) 01:55, 17 November 2025 (UTC)

I didn't notice, my bad! Thank you for the clarification, hopefully I will find reviews or secondary sources to replace them. GenoV84 (talk) 01:59, 17 November 2025 (UTC)

Forcible rape cases

FRC decreased from 1992 to 2012, reached a peak in 2018. Source: https://www.statista.com/statistics/191137/reported-forcible-rape-cases-in-the-usa-since-1990

I know that WP:STATISTA isn't WP:RS.

Hint: the definition for FR changed in 2013. Source: https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s/2018/crime-in-the-u.s.-2018/topic-pages/rape

So, yup, there were many more cases in 2018 than in 2012 because... the way of counting them is different. Apples and oranges. tgeorgescu (talk) 18:59, 22 November 2025 (UTC)

Deletion Picture .xxx

Hello, please delete the image .xxx. Images in a Wikipedia article are intended to improve understanding of the text (MOS:IMG), but this image serves only as decoration, and doesn't improve the reader's understanding of the effects of porn. The Other Karma (talk) 21:25, 22 November 2025 (UTC)

I went ahead and made the change. It really doesn't have anything to do with the Effects topic, and isn't an image of anything other than three letters. LizardJr8 (talk) 20:31, 8 December 2025 (UTC)

Abdi c.s.

The correlations are very low. See Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Science/2026 January 17#Percentage of explained variation.

@TA: most of the variance (more than 90%) has to be explained by other causes. So, porn consumption is not a major cause of relationship/sexual dissatisfaction. WP:CALC says that basic arithmetic is allowed.

"Porn consumption produces relationship/sexual dissatisfaction" is a pitiful theory (about 1% truth in it).

So, yup, in order to WP:ASSERT my claim, I need that Wright et. al. (2017), Abdi et. al. (2024), and maybe Tan et. al. (2025) get recognized as WP:RS. So, obviously, I have no axe to grind against their papers. I'm not saying their papers are dodgy, but the tested theory is dodgy. tgeorgescu (talk) 14:13, 27 January 2026 (UTC)

"porn consumption is not a major cause of relationship/sexual dissatisfaction." Yes, Captain Obvious. Who even suggested such a causal relationship? It sounds patently ridiculous. Dimadick (talk) 12:45, 28 January 2026 (UTC)

It's not our task to speculate about causality. Messen ist Wissen. (Measuring is knowing.)

The theory did not get debunked by skeptics and naysayers. It got debunked by scholars who took the causality for granted, yet have candidly shown that 99% of the variance has to be explained by other variables. tgeorgescu (talk) 16:12, 28 January 2026 (UTC)

A reply I got from a professor says that R squared is the amount of explained variance, if there is only one explanatory variable. He also added that because of the way data was gathered, there is nothing to say about the strength of the correlation.

So, yup, at best an extremely weak correlation, at worst scientifically useless. tgeorgescu (talk) 12:14, 29 April 2026 (UTC)

Restoration

@Justanotherguy54: That section is interesting, but I don't know what it has to do with "effects". tgeorgescu (talk) 13:38, 26 April 2026 (UTC)

Deletion

@TA: the opinion of a full professor, published at Oxford University Press, is highly relevant. Also, about pseudoscience: we are bound to affirm that by website policy (WP:PSCI). tgeorgescu (talk) 13:08, 10 May 2026 (UTC)

Reconsideration

I have learned that MDPI is sometimes compliant with WP:MEDRS. I am therefore prepared to reconsider the following sources:

• Love, Todd; Laier, Christian; Brand, Matthias; Hatch, Linda; Hajela, Raju (2015-09-18). "Neuroscience of Internet Pornography Addiction: A Review and Update". Behavioral Sciences (Basel, Switzerland). 5 (3): 388–433. doi:10.3390/bs5030388. ISSN 2076-328X. PMC 4600144. PMID 26393658. S2CID 16085514.
• Alarcón, Rubén de; de la Iglesia, Javier I.; Casado, Nerea M.; Montejo, Angel L. (2019-01-15). "Online Porn Addiction: What We Know and What We Don't-A Systematic Review". Journal of Clinical Medicine. 8 (1): E91. doi:10.3390/jcm8010091. ISSN 2077-0383. PMC 6352245. PMID 30650522. S2CID 58578935.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: unflagged free DOI (link)

WP:REDFLAG: not indexed for MEDLINE, DSM-5-TR and The ASAM Principles of Addiction Medicine (Seventh ed.) do not recognize porn addiction, ICD-11 does not recognize that CSBD is an addiction.

And it is not certain that Alarcón et al. (2019) posit the existence of porn addiction as a done deal. tgeorgescu (talk) 23:37, 9 June 2026 (UTC)