Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Porn Addiction' started by Deleted Account, Nov 14, 2018.
I'm starting to think nofap is bullshit, but either is that article.
I agree, I wouldn't be in favor of banning porn, making it against the law. If people legitimately don't have a problem with it, then let them do it. However for people who do have a problem with it, like myself, I do need to cut it out
Yeah you're right, however the author attacks ALL of the anti-porn, anti-fapping platforms, including NoFap. I encourage you to read it
Ah OK, the idea is still creepy as hell though
A few months ago, I had developed an "acquaintance" with a phone sex operator, read about it here: https://www.nofap.com/forum/index.p...-with-phone-sex-operator.189355/#post-1621782. She was an extremely liberal, feminist-type. When I told her I was doing NoFap, her reply was a sarcastic "oh no, that's tied in with that whole incel thing". She encouraged me to view porn and contact a fellow phone sex operator. I worry that there really is this view out there that porn keeps the incels happy and medicated so they don't act out, and that this acquaintance took a similar view of me.
Here's another anti-anti-porn article I came across today, from the libertarian website Reason: http://reason.com/blog/2018/11/13/porn-panic-in-politics-never-left. This quote struck me: "And in the same decades that access to porn has dramatically increased, rates of everything from domestic violence to sexual assault to crimes against children (including sex crimes) have fallen." So you see that there is this idea out there that porn is actually good because then people don't act out in public, don't commit crimes, etc. So porn addicts should suffer in their addiction, for the good of society, is the takeaway
I'd imagine the main reason for the rates of those crimes falling is that people know they're less likely to get away with those crimes nowadays.
The author lumps NoFap, No-Nut-November, the alt-right, 4chan, and even vaguely hints at Discord (that one felt really out of left field to me) into a box that's big enough to contain all of them, but small and vague enough to make them all easy to attack under one simple, awful label: misogyny. It's convenient, it makes for a flashy article title which increases traffic to the website the article was posted on, and it's dramatic and polarizing. I seriously can't believe this is considered intellectually honest journalism. She didn't actually interview anyone from the NoFap community (neither active users nor the creators) to get our perspective on the matter, instead relying on cherry-picked statements from obviously misogynistic people (most of which came from some random No Nut November Discord server).
Spoiler: Possible trigger material
In fact, the only person she interviewed for this article was a person who calls herself "Girl On the Net". She advertises herself as a "sex blogger", whatever that means. As far as I can tell, she has no credentials. She wrote a book called How a Bad Girl Fell in Love, but other than that, I can find no information suggesting she's a reliable source of information. She also prefers to remain anonymous on the web, so that makes it even more difficult to verify that she actually knows what she's talking about when she weighs in on this subject.
More importantly, there's no evidence that Girl On the Net has ever been an active member of the NoFap community, and there's no reason for us to believe that she knows the first thing about NoFap.
I encourage you all to look her up yourself and draw your own conclusions, but I put this in a spoiler warning because some of the material on her website could be potentially triggering.
Additionally, she throws Gary Wilson under the bus, calling him a "pseudo-scientist" without criticizing any of his actual arguments. She vaguely summarizes his main idea in this quote:
She puts Wilson's position on the line (which, by the way, is backed up by some of the world's finest neuroscientists and addiction specialists), but she doesn't actually criticize it.
By the way, her main source for criticizing Wilson's argument is a quote from her interview with "Girl On the Net" (mentioned in the spoiler above). Whoever "Girl On the Net" is, she has no credentials academically or within the scientific community, and we have no reason to believe anything she says.
It makes me really sad to see an article like this. The research that went into it was minimal (doesn't take much more than a google search to find the stuff that she found), the relevant people involved were not interviewed or accurately represented, she cherry-picked dialogue from these communities that support her argument while ignoring the dialogue that stands in opposition to her argument, and the only person that was actually interviewed has nothing to do with the same communities she's criticizing. I know people who have been journalists since the seventies who would laugh at an article like this.
It wouldn't really be an issue so long as she also interviewed someone from the other side of the issue to actually gain a balanced perspective. How about actually interviewing Gary Wilson? How about interviewing the creators of NoFap to ask for their perspective on the matter? These people are easily reachable and would gladly give an interview to educate the general public about their points of view on porn, masturbation, and misogyny.
Exactly. I understand what you're saying but Girl On The Net isn't even an authority figure for the evidence against NoFap.
Read it. It's just a trash article. It's as simple as they don't want us to make ourselves better, so they'd feel better about themselves. Pathetic excuses of a journalist or whatever she calls herself.
You're preaching to the choir, man. Shit doesn't make any sense.
Then again, I guess it does... The article probably generated a lot of ad revenue with a flashy title like that. Hope the author got her paycheck...
Really good point here, folks.
With this argument, there is another side. They're basically saying porn pacifies people and that on the plus side, people are committing less violence and sexual assault. However on the negative side, which they don't mention, people are also probably being less active in a positive way, getting out and achieving things in the world. It's basically an argument for digitally doping people, they might as well be making an argument to actually drug people to make them more docile.. which sounds like something a totalitarian regime would enjoy doing.
Basically the plot of Brave New World by Aldous Huxley. One of my favorite books of all time.
Yeah, exactly what it is, that's the really insidious thing. So then not looking at porn actually becomes a method of resistance. Let that motivate everyone
I honestly wouldn't pay articles like this any mind, and encourage everyone to form their own conclusions based on their own research and practical application of ideas. The person writing this article is just another one of those people who we have all likely encountered at some point or another; someone who spews out buzzwords because they dont have a coherent argument and in general argue from a position of bad faith. In recent years I have learnt that milk is a fascist symbol and a cartoon frog is racist, so to hear someone accusing NoFap of being alt-right isn't really all that shocking to me. The rest of the argument is just your typical
"tHeReS nO eVidEnCe ThAt pOrN iS hArMfUl" bullshit and the person making the claims has absolutely no credibility and should be promptly ignored. I have no problem with people who choose to PMO but I firmly believe that people who are actively against NoFap have an agenda of their own, one that for me, is far more "insidious" than just me deciding not to jerk off 5 times a day.
SJW Liberals are creating their own ever narrowing hellscape of acceptable speech and behaviour. They're equating discipline with puritanism, which they then equate with the patriarchy and conservatism. Ergo nofap equals alt-right.
Find inner peace through restraint, they can't take that away from you, and it will drive them crazy because they themselves are so tormented.
we are all misogynists and alt-righters now to the likes of the author. Anything trying encouraging self control, self restraint or traditional sexual mores is a threat to them.
Totalitarians, people seeking to control society want people who are passive and weak. They want you buying from the company store- including your books and thoughts. Anything that isn't their agenda is anti-their agenda.