Latest Stats and Facts on Punography

[RobinFinderson]

http://www.televictim.com/christianporn.html

Huh. Turns out it can be okay.

Duh, this is what I have been telling you all along. I like the way that Christian Porn sets itself apart from other porn sites with the terrible 90's-era web design that Christians are used to.

[UtahDan]

http://www.cnn.com/video/?hpt=hp_c4#...-addiction.cnn

Related, interesting:

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-504803_1...icted-to-food/

[All-American]

Related, interesting:

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-504803_1...icted-to-food/

I know for my part, I eat practically every day. Sometimes, three or four times a day. Can't go more than a few hours without it. I guess that's an addiction.

[wuapinmon]

I couldn't decide to put this in the thread or not, but I think it just doesn't quite qualify.

Borderline SFW.......I thought this guy might be Mormon or Catholic until this line, "I'm not religious/so I bash the bishop/and after it's done I ask for forgiveness."

[YOUTUBE]mXwSOnCQ8vQ[/YOUTUBE]

Juxtaposed with this one:

[YOUTUBE]VTxYyQnDDUg[/YOUTUBE]

[UtahDan]

Desnews excited about the Republican plank to prosecute obscenity (read here, adult porn makers).

http://www.deseretnews.com/article/7...-priority.html

Adult pornography, unfortunately, has over the last two decades gained increased social acceptance. It is available in many hotel rooms and ubiquitous on the Internet. Several years ago, it was estimated to be a $100 billion industry, and that figure has surely increased. It has become conventional wisdom that pornography is somehow protected under the First Amendment, so long as it depicts adults.

That is not necessarily true. In 1973, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled an explicit depiction could be outlawed as obscene if it "taken as a whole, appeals to the prurient interest in sex; portrays, in a patently offensive way, sexual conduct specifically defined by the applicable state law; and, taken as a whole, does not have serious literary, artistic, political or scientific value."

...

We join others in hoping that this obscenity prosecution plank will not just rally a Republican base during the election, but might influence any who have a say with regard to enforcing our obscenity laws. We hope the gathering evidence of pornography's harm will create momentum for tougher enforcement regardless of who wins in November.

If Romney wins will this be like when Obama won and people frantically started hoarding guns?

[DU Ute]

If Romney wins will this be like when Obama won and people frantically started hoarding guns?

I'm way ahead of you. My 1 Terabyte hard drive is almost full.

[Northwestcoug]

Desnews excited about the Republican plank to prosecute obscenity (read here, adult porn makers).

http://www.deseretnews.com/article/7...-priority.html



If Romney wins will this be like when Obama won and people frantically started hoarding guns?

I'm hoarding my porn stash as we speak. Christian porn, of course.

[DU Ute]

I'm hoarding my porn stash as we speak. Christian porn, of course.

Oh, yeah. Of course. Just the tasteful Christian stuff.

[falafel]

I'm hoarding my porn stash as we speak. Christian porn, of course.

I've heard of that before. Mostly Catholic School girls.

[Northwestcoug]

I've heard of that before. Mostly Catholic School girls.

[HBCoug]

Can you imagine the boon it would mean to the porn industry if Mitt wins, and John Boehner is named as chief of staff?

[wuapinmon]

Can you imagine the boon it would mean to the porn industry if Mitt wins, and John Boehner is named as chief of staff?

Boehner, Chief of Staff

[UtahDan]

The damaged goods hypothesis posits that female performers in the adult entertainment industry have higher rates of childhood sexual abuse (CSA), psychological problems, and drug use compared to the typical woman. The present study compared the self-reports of 177 porn actresses to a sample of women matched on age, ethnicity, and marital status. Comparisons were conducted on sexual behaviors and attitudes, self-esteem, quality of life, and drug use. Porn actresses were more likely to identify as bisexual, first had sex at an earlier age, had more sexual partners, were more concerned about contracting a sexually transmitted disease (STD), and enjoyed sex more than the matched sample, although there were no differences in incidence of CSA. In terms of psychological characteristics, porn actresses had higher levels of self-esteem, positive feelings, social support, sexual satisfaction, and spirituality compared to the matched group. Last, female performers were more likely to have ever used 10 different types of drugs compared to the comparison group. A discriminant function analysis was able to correctly classify 83% of the participants concerning whether they were a porn actress or member of the matched sample. These findings did not provide support for the damaged goods hypothesis.

http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/...99.2012.719168

Interesting.

[UtahDan]

By the way I'm very skeptical about how they went about putting their sample group together.

[woot]

I don't know the science at all, but it seems intuitive to me that gratifying the instinct, visually and otherwise, that is the sole purpose of the existence of any species from a biological stand may affect the brain. I wonder whether images like that are sort of like sugar. Having a sweet tooth is an adaptation our ancestors gained because sugar was virtually never available. Now that we can eat it all day long every day it causes problems.

Might that be the same thing with sexual images? Too much of a good thing that is available in quantities it never was before? That is my first thought. My second thought is, how do I know that my species isn't adapted (at least the males) to circumstances where access to sexual images (nude or semi-nude females) and the number of sexual partners and experiences where much higher than they are now?

That to me raises the additional question of whether we might now have a biological adaptation that is in tension with a cultural adaptation (monogamy).

I wonder what woot knows about this.

This is quite an insightful post.

I'm a little rusty on this topic, but there is plenty of evidence to suggest that humans retain a number of adaptations to a more promiscuous lifestyle. The glans penis is shaped so as to remove the semen of the last guy before depositing your own, the first ejaculatory spurt or two includes a spermicide to try to kill the last guy's contribution, there's a well-known phenomenon in long-term relationships where sex becomes less interesting than it used to be, perhaps due to an adaptation to seek out additional mates once yours has been sufficiently impregnated (even if she hasn't been due to birth control).

On the other hand, sexual dimorphism in humans is relatively slight, the interbirth interval is relatively short, and our offspring are extremely altricial (helpless). This suggests that male-male competition would have played a smaller role, and male parental investment in the offspring, relatively unusual among primates, would have been required well before the advent of anatomically modern Homo sapiens. So, we aren't evolved to live in chimp-like free love societies either.

I don't know what conclusions to draw from that. Small harems, serial monogamy, or small, multi-male, multi-female mating groups all seem like prehistoric possibilities. Indeed, humans practice each of these systems today in various parts of the world.