Re:Deep Inside: A Study of 10,000 Pornstars and Their Careers
by CodeMage on Friday February 15, 2013 @01:49PM
(#5227710)
Why on earth would you draw the conclusion that I came up with that because I search for that kind of porn? Let me put it this way: if you go to a store looking for chocolate and there's a lot of products with hazelnuts and you remark on that, would you expect anyone to jump at you and say "That's because you were looking for chocolate with hazelnuts"?
Re:Deep Inside: A Study of 10,000 Pornstars and Their Careers
by fluidcruft on Friday February 15, 2013 @11:22AM
(#5226898)
I think the point is the relative proportion of available/consumed porn that falls into these categories. Anecdotally, I agree with CodeMage that this sort of porn seems to be the predominant form (at least within the commercial variety of porn advertised on the internet). Perhaps what's needed is some sort of measurement of the different classifications. I really think you should address the point of proportion of this type of porn consumed, rather than the methods that can be used to identify it.
>Second, a lot of porn out there focuses on and glorifies the woman's suffering, pain and degradation. Seriously, you only have to read the word "painal" once to realize that. However, if that's not enough, you might also look for the occurrences of "choke", "gag", "destroy", "slut", etc.
---
You're searching for that specific type of porn - of course it's going to be degrading. Your whole argument falls flat on it's face I'm afraid.