First of all, I think all science articles should start with Springsteen puns. And also this article
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn16680-porn-in-the-usa-conservatives-are-biggest-consumers.html
and the original paper
http://people.hbs.edu/bedelman/papers/redlightstates.pdf

are quite interesting. The paper itself is called "Red Light States", which made me giggle but isn't as good as 'Porn in the USA'.

It shows that the more conservative states are also the highest consumers of online porn. My favourite part is:


So, we can safely conclude that Obi and Wookie fap the most at Massassi. But not on Sundays.

bought?

Psh, conservatives need to learn how use the internet.

Conservatives are the biggest consumers of normal porn.

Us tree hugging, tie-dye shirt wearing, drum circle havin' hippies, well.

We like the kinky stuff

I found it amusing that Utah has the most searches for gay porn (not that there's anything wrong with that. It's just that, you know, it's Utah).

I can't remember where I heard that though...

You all now have the mental picture of a bunch of old white guys fapping to porn.

Let that mental picture soak in your mind.

Hahahaha, exactly what I was thinking.

Nope, I didn't, interesting that your mind immediately went to that though

Well dalfs a balding white conservative.

dalf's just into sexually-active old conservatives.

"Ooooh, yeah, baby! Cut those taxes! Veto that abortion bill! Oooooooooooooooooooooooooh yes!"

DRILL BABY! DRILL!

It sounds like the differences are too small and inconsistent to draw any real conclusions.

The real question, is why anyone is stupid enough to pay for porn in the days of bit torrent?

And maybe it's just me, but porn doesn't really seem that erotic. Of course, I'm probably not the best judge of that.

ah... if they are not including free porn sites then that study has little to do with how much porn is actually viewed. only how much is "purchased" that would be like trying to do a study about how much music is "consumed" on the net and only going off of legit cd sales.

it just means conservatives are not as crafty in their acquisition of porn... apparently.

My attempt at mental torture has failed.

That was Conservative Tactic #311

no your doing it wrong! you gotta water board first, then play metalica over and over... then start in with the mental images!:suicide:

Typical Churchies.

I've always found porn to be mostly for the socially and physically poor. Not that most people don't take a look from time to time (you know, sometimes you got nothing better to do and need to blow some steam, but shh).

I think its soo much better to leave the house and find something to do. Whether it be sexually related or not, its better than watching porn. I used to go out and play soccer, but then people moved and now the people who play are just, boring.

Now I go out and visit people. Nobody visits me (except for some people who are too far for me to visit so I let them come), because they know I'm bound to come around. I always seem to pop in at convienient hours, when they need to ask me something or would like to go out to the movies/pub/party/(INSERT SOCIAL EVENT HERE).

Anyhow... porn is sort of one of those things that I think is mostly viewed by underaged people. I don't know why, but I find it kind of immature and a waste of time when you can be elsewhere doing something, interesting.

YES
Trey Parker is the man. (Along with Matt Stone .. "I don't want to sound queer or anything ....)

Porn is perfectly healthy for non-soccer and soccer playing people alike. For old and young alike. The assumption that porn is somehow negative for people is annoying as hell. Sexuality needs to be less offensive soon.

hahahahaha

I'm not sure I would agree that porn is perfectly healthy.

Naked women are better for the mind than believing in 2000 year old bull****.

Only a conservative would pay for porn.

Perhaps you could provide some peer-reviewed scientific literature that suggests otherwise?

Octomom should make a porno for $1,000,000.

http://www.wired.com/science/discoveries/news/2004/11/65772

That's not peer-reviewed. There isn't even any data presented in the article. It's just some psycho ***** ranting about how pornography is bad for you. Probably because she's ugly and doesn't get any.

This lady has it right.
Pornography stimulates the brain the same way (essentially) that sex does. Especially when you take into account, you know, the masturbation part of it. Sex has been proven to be very healthy.

Just because something says "University" in it doesn't mean it's a good source of information. You should try actual critical thinking skills. You've done nothing but find an article about a few people that happen to agree with you and are accepting it as proof.

I don't have time to post more right now, but I know porn is also bad for the women involved in it, not to mention the millions of girls trafficked in sex slavery...

Haha, what? Why is porn bad for the women involved in it? Plenty of women make careers in porn because they like it and because it pays well. Sure, plenty of porn is degrading to the women who are in it, but it's their own damn fault for taking those jobs. No one forces anyone to do porn.

What the hell does human trafficking have to do with porn? Do you really think porn production companies buy sex slaves and make them star on screen?

The San Fernando Valley in L.A. must be FILLED with trafficked sex slaves.

Sex Slaves are for depraved "humans" whom I would love nothing more for them to leave existance in a slow and VERY painful manner. However, they are not caused by horny teenagers/collegiates.

You don't know that, you think that.

I'm sure some women have a bad time. Some also love their job. Thats the nature of the human experience. I bet the little kids who make your nike shoes have a worse job than most porn stars. But the bible doesn't condemn slavery. Whats up with that?

I love how everyone seems to be an expert of everything

That's because they [url=en.wikipedia.org]are[/url].

whats porn?

I bet that was fun to do research for.

My knowledge comes from the biology and psychology courses I have taken, as well as the journals I read.

It seems like it's be a bad idea to separate the immediate passion component of sex from the deeper, relationship component. On the other hand, no one give a ****.

No one cares.