Talk:NoFap/Archive1

This is an archive page, last updated 17 December 2023. Please do not make edits to this page.

Archives for this talk page:  , (new)(back)

Porn is public hazard != porn should be banned

The two views don't necessarily conflict. Thinking marijuana has negative effects -- even addiction -- need not imply that it should be banned. FuzzyCatPotato!™ (talk/stalk) 14:22, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

Nofappers Religious motivated?

There is already aNoFapChristians reddit, but i wonder if sites like yourbrainonporn.com and others are a religous in nature or some kind of woo aiming at the sexuality of people (a good way of controlling them).

There is some merit to it, at least a lot of people seem to think positive about their "Nofap Feburary Challenge" and such, but i wonder, in addition if this isn't a secret Mormon plot, if it isn't also a perfect vehicle for Sex-woo...--Benaresh (talk) 17:21, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

While going to undergrad in a rural area of the Deep South about 15 years ago, i remember seeing a billboard that simply said, in red on black, "Jesus hates porn." Anti-masturbation stuff has been around for a long, long time, and NoFap movement is a modern decentralized secular version, although it involves many of the same tropes: masturbation causes laziness and disinterest in women . Its just been secularized and inter meshed with a lot of PUA woo, like nofap will help you improve your "game". Petey Plane (talk) 18:41, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

The religious component to anti-masturbation and sexual repression generally is very overt indeed, as it has been for time immemorial.

Regarding porn addiction generally (leaving the religious angle), take notes to this:

...and take cover from this. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 19:22, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

I Love School of life too! Without it i never tried to become a better person (hurted to face that as an example) However: Pornography addiction "A 2014 released study identified a connection between a subjects religious beliefs and their self perception of pornography addiction ... One of the findings of the study is that the results strongly indicate a predilection in religious people to believe they are addicted to pornography regardless of how much they watch or whether it negatively impacts their lives." Political motivation: "According to E.T.M. Laan, a sexologist working for the Academic Medical Center, it is usually the religious right which claims the existence of pornography addiction and such claims are rare among sexologists"

Also to keep in mind:.A site named Yourbrainonporn.com that claims to be science based, but i doesn't really read it like it is : this as an example doesn't even mention Bi-Sexuality as another cause for a budding interest in your own gender. --Benaresh (talk) 21:06, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

What NoFap is not

Copy-and-paste from the website's about page:

1. “NoFap” is neither a verb nor a principle. It’s the name of an organization and its associated website, tools, and services.
2. NoFap is not a movement. It’s just a website.
3. NoFap is not a religious website.
4. NoFap is not an anti-masturbation website
5. NoFap does not support legislation to restrict the creation or consumption of pornography.
6. NoFap is not a sex-negative website.
7. NoFap’s community is not homogenous.

—€h33s3βurg3rF@€3  (talk • stalk) 20:46, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

They claim they are secular and science based but the similarities are striking and as i posted above this about "im not gay but i watch gay porn" Doesn't even mention Bi-Sexuality. As a BI myself i hate this disingenous bullshit. I have the feeling that it is a lot liek Creationism in that i want to present its very religous nature in a mantle of Science... --Benaresh (talk) 21:13, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

To Elaborate: I think Porn Addiction might be real but an Online Community that preaches no fapping isn't the professional help you might need.--Benaresh (talk) 21:28, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

This page isn't "rational" in the slightest

See the main article on this topic: "But I thought this was supposed to be RATIONALWiki!" Drink!

What is this biased nonsense? Have any of you even bothered to review the brain studies profiled on Yourbrainonporn.com? Researchers at both Cambridge University and the Max Planck Institute have found that the brains of porn users have almost the exact same changes as those of drug addicts. Oh, and the man who created the site is an atheist, so don't even try to go with the religious angle. You people must be utterly retarded if you think one study done with countless methodological flaws can somehow debunk several. By the way, that one study you have by Nicole Prause, notorious hack who's never seriously studied addiction neuroscience in her life? Take a closer look. It proves OUR point, not yours! Some of those featured in the study were heavy porn users, and anybody with even a basic understanding of how addiction works could tell you that an addict's brain becomes desensitized to a drug over time, needing more and more of it to achieve the same effect. Thus, the brains of heavy porn users reacted less to pornographic images than those of subjects who didn't watch porn regularly. Amazing that everyone on this site is so pathetically obsessed with being "sex-positive" that they're willing to ignore basic facts! Enjoy fucking up your sex lives jacking off to porn, losers! I choose to believe the science over your dogma. ^{— Unsigned, by: 107.72.162.48 / talk / contribs}

Clearly, you're the unbiased source we need to set us straight. Petey Plane (talk) 22:17, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

I'm unbiased because I actually look at the science, unlike you numbskulls. And yes, the science overwhelmingly supports my point of view, not yours. Your silly ideology does not dictate reality. ^{— Unsigned, by: 107.72.162.48 / talk / contribs}

yes calling People who disagree with you Numbskulls sure is convincing. Anyway The Max-Planck Institute Did not claim nothing of the sorts. Dr. Simone Kühn and Dr. Jürgen Gallinat studied 64 Men and their brains... Anyway you probably start screaming mayhem anyway , but consider this: there is a difference between a Condition (porn addiction) and your solution wich boils down to secular abstinence. So seek professional help if you feel your Porn Consumption slipped your control. But please do not go apeshit on RW cause we reserve some doubts about your movement.--Benaresh (talk) 22:59, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

A lot of the site features anecdotal stories which has no scientific weight at all. Here's an article that cites some scientific studies. Have at it everyone. I would advise users to open and read the actual studies instead of trusting that the article is not taking things out of context.—€h33s3βurg3rF@€3  (talk • stalk) 01:51, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

I updated the article. Turns out porn users don't get desensitized by porn.—€h33s3βurg3rF@€3  (talk • stalk) 02:21, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

For extra info i reread the Study done by Dr. Kühn : First Alarm bell rung when a supposedly German study isn't available in German. I mentioned that the Study bases it claims on 64 Participants? That is below significance. Third strike is how short it is with. I highly doubt that the Ärtzekammer peer reviewed that garbage. --Benaresh (talk) 07:10, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

Chan thread

I found this that responds to this article. In addition, I found this image, it's entirely outsourced but may lead to further debunking.—€h33s3βurg3rF@€3  (talk • stalk) 04:23, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

Here's a link to the Reddit version.—€h33s3βurg3rF@€3  (talk • stalk) 04:35, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

*Munches on chips while watching the NoFap 4chan post being trolled to death* GrammarCommie (talk) 04:45, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

Revert

Grammarcommie, please leave a reason when reverting edits. Im sure you have a good one but it's nice to know why. ShabiDOO 02:37, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

Dangers

so besides unnecessary self hate, isn't it harmful to have that semen, have it die off and rebuild? I remember reading that a wank a week coincides with a reduced risk of testicular cancer- because well, cell death isn't that clean a thing, so doing a manual emission would reduce strain on testicular tissue.

oh yeah, reliable studies?one from Harvard with 31k men has reduced incidence of testicular cancer for men who masturbate at least 21 times per month.

https://www.europeanurology.com/article/S0302-2838(16)00377-8/abstract/abstract_52392463?mobileUi=0 ^{— Unsigned, by: 2.243.19.136 / talk / contribs}