It's a fair cop, guv'nor. I really must pull the curtains next time and get rid of the sheep.
It brought 8mm film projectors into the home. It launched the VHS revolution. And it has contributed mightily to the success of the internet. What else could we be referrring to but porn? And now Online MBA has provided a staggering set of stats that show exactly how pervasive the ever-evolving effluence of erotica is on the …
What percentage of cave paintings or the writings on the walls of Roman towns are salacious depictions of sex... might I guess 12%? in which case we have reached porn homoeostasis on the net.
Paris for her upstanding (so I'm led to believe) contribution to this global achievement.
All this talk about "porn", but they don't ever say what they mean by it. From their little poster, it appears that"sex" is synonymous with porn - at least in their world. So are "adult websites". Should we therefore conclude that when they refer to porn, they simply mean anything of an adult nature - including, presumably "adult" i.e. cert 18 films?
So what it seems to boil down to is that in a world populated overwhelmingly by adults, a significant proportion of web traffic, searches, emails and websites either contain or are there to satisfy people's needs for adult material?
Maybe the real problem is that stunted individuals who felt the need to produce this chart - and the research behind it aren't mature enough to have a "grown-up" discussion about the topic. If they were, they'd realise that there's a tremendous amount of sex going on - everywhere (hint: that's why there are nearly 7 billion people on the planet, and more every day) and that it's a big part of lots of people's lives. To deny it's there or to consider it a bad thing seems rather foolish.
This isn't from some anti-porn website, or from a porn industry website. It's from a blog for business MBAs. It's not intended to vilify - or, for that matter, justify - pornography*; this is an informative, not a persuasive, graphic. The numbers behind it are important to business people for reasons ranging from investment strategies to management strategies to procurement strategies.
The judgment, therefore, which you inferred from this graphic and the research behind it ultimately came from nowhere but yourself. Please consider therapy, or at least defer commenting until you are mature enough to have a frank discussion on this topic.
*which, by the way, is pretty well defined. If you MUST have a definition provided to you, go here: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/pornography
The way these results are presented makes them look more like many of those crap surveys that appear in Mens Health or GQ magazines where the population quota sampled is about 15, and then extrapolated out linearly to supposedly represent a total population.
So I call "shenannigans" on these results - but in all truth don't give a flying toss either way and am off for a w**k off over the latest Jamie Brooks vid.
... SO WHAT???
People like looking at porn, well, isn't that a surprise! Despite the best efforts of the Mary Whitehouses et al of this world, the human interest in sex and all that goes with it continues unabated.
In other news, Popes are Catholic and (oh, you know the rest...)
Look, if the good ( pick your deity ) hadn't wanted us to have sex, they wouldn't have put our dangly bits in easy reach!
What's so special about Sunday? It's the only day the rest of us can get stuff done, not necessarily this of course, as all the God botherers are down the local place of worship and away from us!
But I know for an absolute fact that EVERY male college student's computer that I've worked on over the last 25 years or so has contained porn. The coeds didn't start picking up on Internet porn in college until around a dozen years ago ... and now, they are nearly equal to the boys.
In business, over the last decade and a half or so, probably 80% (or thereabouts) of all male middle management PCs contain traces of Internet porn (in my experience). The ladies started surfing porn around 6 years ago, and are now (roughly) equal to the men.
Not trying to justify it, nor vilify it, and likewise not drawing conclusions, just stating my observations. Do with them what you will.
I have actually stayed away from the Goddamn porn sites because of the trojans.
Now I find that I am not holding up my side.
(Oh God, snicker.)
I will try to adjust this situation by trying to find some good quality porn sites that I can access at work. I think I will start with a deep packet inspection of my bosses web presence; yeah, that ought to do it.
(Did you know that a Linux machine will automatically log on to an XP?)
Weird; so let us see what the bigwigs are doing today and hope we do not go blind in the process.
'Cause we really should have some damn values.
The important point is "admitted to"!
Women will not, as a rule, admit to watching porn except with people they absolutely trust (or their completely wasted). But women do watch porn, just like women do masturbate. They dont talk about it like guys do but they still do it.
We're all human after all...
A joke about never actually meeting a woman with a handle of FreeTard would be too easy.
If you're really curious, google up 'yaoi' and 'slashfic.' But not at work, unless you're part of that 20%. Spoiler: Know how there's a lot of straight male-targeted porn of 'lesbians'?
Also consider how smut is hidden offline. Ever heard of Harlequin Books? Or 'dime dreadfuls'? Or just 'romance novels' in general? They're not technical manuals.
Paris likes porn, too!
A lot of women will admit porn surfing to some people but not to others. The same rule applies to a lot of things with women (and to a lesser extent men) - If they trust and feel comfortable with you then they'll admit to all sorts of things, but if they think you're a weirdo then they won't even admit to taking their clothes off before they get in the shower.
> Unless American women are vastly diffferent to the rest of the world, which I doubt.
Vastly? Maybe not, but in my experience they are a lot more open about what they do & what they like, especially in the self-help department, than are English* women. I still remember the weekend I learned that...
*I use "English" for a reason. Scots & Irish are almost as open as the female yanks (especially the redheads :) )
Anon. Of course.
Can I just say that 116,000 searches for child pornography a day. That's slightly sickening to be honest and is that only in the US? Having the opportunity to view media on the internet is what is making mankind as a collective better in my view not just porn but everything and seeing that stat just makes me feel sick. Wont anyone think of the children?
First, I don't know how these statistics were created, so I doubt them a lot. As you point out, we don't know anything about the population from which the sample was drawn, and there are lots of other metainformation about the study they'll have to publish before the figures can be believed.
Second. Even if the figure is accurate, we don't know how many of these searches were by people who wanted to look at child porn. I made such a search once; a friend sent me a cartoon depicting disney's little mermaid Ariel (who is 15 in the original fairy tale) in a hot scene with disney's Jasmine and several miniature replicas of Agraba's towers. So I searched Wikipedia for "child pornography" because I wanted to know if the picture is illegal in my country. But does that make me an abominable paedophile? (BTW, I didn't keep the cartoon anyway).
Third. Even if most of the 116 K searches are made by actual sickos, ~100 000 people who like to look at kiddies (assuming each is making exactly one query per day) out of ~2 billion Internet users isn't that much, it is 1 in 20 000. To put it in perspective: the prevalence for ASPD (the exact medical term for what is commonly known as "psychopathy") is about 1 in 500 people. So why does the number given here for child porn searches surprise you? Yes, people who like child porn really exist, we don't imagine them. But there aren't many of them around, and the figure here confirms that.
AC, because this is a british site and I just admitted to having caught a glimpse of the little mermaid sans bikini.
Since we're not told anything about how the survey was done, it's a bit dodgy to compare 68 million seraches per day for all porn (including adult dating) with 116,000 per day for child pornography.
But it's less than 0.2%, which looks a lot less frightening.
I wonder how long it will be before politicians start making a fuss about these dreadful totals. It's worth noting that US law, generally, makes it easier for a porn business to stay legal. If your local MP starts flapping about this, blame it on yankee perversion.
And how many 'serious' paedos would actually be dumb enough to type 'child pornography' in to a search engine? From the articles I read here, most are really quite careful about keeping under cover. Using a search engine would be like having a fluorescent sign on your head saying 'please arrest me, I like kiddy porn'.
20% of men surf porn at work? That's utterly stupid, yet it happens.
Unless kiddie porn lovers are of above average intelligence, which I somehow doubt, I wouldn't put it past them to google their hobby.
I suspect the "rings" we hear of in the news, whilst being the most dangerous, are far from the most representative.
The article context makes it seem as if there are 116k pedo's searching for images of child abuse every day. Let's remember there are numerous reasons why someone may use the search term "Child Pornography" which have nothing to do with wanting to consume porn. Maybe I've been the victim of child pornography, maybe I'm studying the psycho/social issues around it, maybe I'm researching it's prevalence on the web...
There is a moralistic anti-porn bias in these figures. Its trying scare tactics from all directions.
My suspicion was first raised when it said "$3,075.64", that's intentionally trying to make it look like a big number on a quick first glance. $3075 looks less but thats a small point compared with what follows it.
I'm not sure if the moralistic anti-porn bias was coming from www.onlineschools.org ... my first thought was they were biasing it, but the more I read it and look at their web site, I think the bias is second hand so to speak, as its coming through the statistics from other sites they used as reference as some of these are using anti-porn biased figures.
Not sure what to make of the church on Sunday image, as there is two ways to interpret it. Either its the anti-porn moralistic brigade annoyed at porn on Sunday or its the anti-porn moralistic brigade showing their voyeuristic porn fetish hypocrisy on Sunday. :)
Am I alone in having been online so long that the thrill of online thrusting bits has waned immensely? In days of yore I was way up there with my 56K modem, but it seems to me that a one-day sub on any major site would satisfy even the most 'ardent' teenager for months? Broadband has therefore freed me to research youtube's cat collection, which is apparently even more infinite (??) than the other kind of pussy!
Tell me something we don't know! I am suprised it's as low as that. I always thought WWW stood for (W)orld (W)ide (W)ank.
Even back in the early days of the closed university systems I worked with there was always the smut pictures going around.
Pass anything to the masses and you will always end up seeing the base denominator. Take aways the porn hunters the freetards the net would not be as big as it is now.
Take away the KP peddlers and other such deviants, it beats having to wait in line at the cornershop whist the guy in front with the sheepish look buys a copy of Reader Wives and 1/2 a pint of milk.
comScore shows Google, Yahoo and Bing in December 2009 performing about 4.5 billion searches per day, That's significantly more than the 272 million searches performed daily as suggested by item 6. This might give an idea o how seriously some of the other items should be takes
How is a search for "adult dating" or "sex" for that matter a search for *pornography*? Or perhaps Online MBA are a bit weak on what "pornography" means. In statistics the easily spotted rubbish is usually just the tip of the iceberg. I strongly suspect that not much of what comes out of this is of much use.