Don't understand why this was flagged/killed. Just because it's about porn? It's a bit long but I'd say it meets all the quality standards and does bear some relevance.

Pornhub collects and analyzes a staggering amount of user data — some of which it uses, like those other companies, to help curate content and determine what a user sees. Pornhub also publicizes some of its anonymized findings on the company’s data-analytics blog, Pornhub Insights.

It doesn't really have much insight. A woman watches porn and writes about her experiences on it. Pornhub does statistics and it isn't really explored in depth in the article.

I assume you are replying to GP who said

> Don't understand why this was flagged/killed

Just for everyone else, I tried to look at the guidelines for flagging but I'd just like to point out that it is OK to flag something that you consider

> Please don't submit comments complaining that a submission is inappropriate for the site. If you think a story is spam or off-topic, flag it by clicking on its 'flag' link. If you think a comment is egregious, click on its timestamp to go to its page, then click 'flag' at the top. (Not all users see flag links; there's a small karma threshold.)

But here's the interesting part:

> If you flag something, please don't also comment that you did.

I didn't realize this was the meta. I've often seen people explaining their down votes but I have never seen anyone explain flagging. I guess down votes can still assume good faith but flagging usually does not?

Not that I ever flag but this was interesting reading. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

I disagree. It has lots of interesting insight into what those statistics mean and how they've evolved. Surprised HN is so easily censored by a single prude.

Many users flagged the story.

Interesting read.

I've always wondered why straight porn can't be written with the modicum of a believable story to explain why the woman is there, and how she can enjoy what is usually mostly a one sided act to please the man. My guess is that believable stories/dialog/acting is a trifecta too difficult to pull off, at least under their typical budgets.

Or because porn is about fantasy and reality is not fantasy. You are not necessarily trying to emulate what's real. Why would you? You are already living it. This is also the reason IMO people graduate in porn and go for mild fantasies to shit that gets you in trouble.

Fantasy has to be believable, there needs to be suspension of disbelief to give it power.

There is very little believable fantasy in porn today. It's shitty porn really quickly and cheaply, because most people are only going to watch for free.

When was there much believable fantasy in porn? The cliché of the plumber that gets seduced doesn't come from the Internet era.

Nowadays, you can find whatever you want, even believable fantasy; it may just not be easy to find on a free site, since like the article explained, they're showing mostly previews and small clips.

It's believable, just not probable.

> how she can enjoy what is usually mostly a one sided act to please the man

But don't you hear the woman's continuous ecstatic moaning? She's clearly the one being pleased./s

Porn has evolved into 7 minute clips people watch for free. There's no time for story, and apparently little demand.

Yea, the internet has killed porn.

I mean I always turn off the sound because those moans are never believable. My experience is that in real life women often dictate what needs to happen for them to be satisfied, they don't just go all googly because a man deigned to put his manhood inside her various openings.

Porn has also involved into live streams people watch for free, or "donate" tokens. e.g. Chaturbate, MyFreeCams, and CAM4

Let's assume I said "evolved"

> Few of us want to actually receive an erotic massage

...what?

Didn't OKCupid (or possibly one of the other big dating sites) post a bunch of similar research? I remember reading a bunch of interesting articles regarding dating trends.

IT's a crappy article, that is why I at least have flagged it. Not worth reading, just a bunch of giggly-talk about different kinds of porn.

Please don't impose your prudishness on others. This was an interesting article.

IT wasn't prudishness - it was literary taste.

To mention the Kinsey Report and then not talk about it in any detail (it's mentioned exactly once in the article in a near-throwaway line; to string together anecdotes one after the other without an apparent overall theme to unify them aside from their shock/giggle value; then a segue to Kink.com.

It's a dog's breakfast.

> your prudishness

That breaks the HN guidelines by calling names. Please don't do that in comments here.

https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

Uh, @dang or other mods, please unflag this article. I certainly found it worth a read, and @resu_nimda explains the "why".

I'm surprised the article didn't mention SFM (thanks, gaben).