💾 Archived View for clemat.is › saccophore › library › ezines › textfiles › ezines › ANADA › anada05… captured on 2022-01-08 at 14:47:02.
⬅️ Previous capture (2021-12-03)
-=-=-=-=-=-=-
............................................................................
......::::..|...###.....###...###...###.....#######.....###......;;;;.......
.....::::..-*-...###.....###..%##....###.....##..%##.....###....;;;;;;......
....::::....|...##.##....#####%##...##.##....##...%##...##.##..;;;;;;;;.....
.....::::......#######...##.#####..#######...##...%##..#######..;;;;;;......
......::::....###...###..##...###.###...###..##..%##..###...###..;;####.....
.............###.....######...%#####.....###############.....###..###.##....
*****###****###***********************************************###**#**##****
## ## ### I S S U E # 0 5 7 0 5 - 1 3 - 0 0 ### ####
### # ### #######
#### ### "alt.sex.sick.bastards" ###
####### by Tyrant
####
While searching for information ABOUT pornography on the Internet, as
opposed to my usual task of searching for pornography itself, I ran across a
very interesting study that appeared in The Georgetown Law Journal titled
"Marketing Pornography on the Information Superhighway," written by Marty
Rimm of Carnegie Mellon University. The information enclosed in the
document is somewhat dated, as most of the (exhaustive, as you'll soon see)
research was conducted in May and June of 1994 by Carnegie Mellon--nearly
six years ago. Therefore, most of the data was collected from commercial
adult Bulletin Board Systems and Usenet newsgroups and included VERY LITTLE
information about the vast wealth of pornography anyone with a modicum of
intelligence could find on the World Wide Web.
Interestingly, shortly after the development of the HTTP standard by
CERN, there were only 130 sites on the entire Web in June of 1993, and
11,576 by December of 1994. Today, there is likely no way to even hazard a
guess as to the number of unique sites on the Web, but the figure would be
mind-boggling. Strangely enough, the researchers found NO pornographic web
sites during their original study in 1994, but when the study was appended
in March of 1995, they found 123. These were found using search engines,
USENET advertisements, and other sex-related Internet resources.
I am not here to discuss the morality of pornography. Like nearly
anyone to whom it is available, I indulge myself from time to time (okay,
pretty much every day) and don't believe that it's harmful or corruptive for
the most part. Of course, like most normal people, I don't care to see
people fucking dogs, and implore anyone interested in bestiality to do the
right thing and off themselves. Nor do I care to see kiddie-porn. (I don't
care who kills those sick fucks. Just see that it's done.)
It's an undeniable fact that EVERY new medium is eventually going to
be used as a tool to distribute and view pornography--the printed word,
photography, motion pictures, VCRs, and now the Internet. Man (and I do
mean the male gender, who are obviously FAR more interested in porn than
women) will use any means available to satisfy his more prurient interests.
I'm willing to bet that in some cave in France, shortly after picking up a
burned stick and scrawling pictures of hunters and prey, at least ONE guy
started drawing pictures of tits and ass. They just don't show you that on
National Geographic.
I found the scope and depth of this study FAR more interesting than
the (by now) outdated information it provided. These researchers viewed
throngs of pornographic images, classifying them by type and verifying
whether or not the type of image matched the content description attached to
the image. (Keep in mind, some of these images were taken from USENET,
where an image must be downloaded and UUDECODED from an encoded text form
into a viewable JPG or GIF. Most were taken from adult BBSes, where one
must read the description and download the image. There are no thumbnails,
so the descriptions are very important.)
Now, I know you're wondering "just how many images did these
researchers analyze?"
*917,410* That's nine hundred seventeen thousand, four hundred and
ten.
Now mind you, they didn't LOOK at a million porno pics in a span of
two months. That's simply the number of image descriptions they analyzed
download statistics for. However, here are some sample descriptions taken
directly from the study:
"BRUNETTE SLUT TAKES A HUGE HORSE COCK IN HER TIGHT PUSSY!"
"BLONDE OPENS WIDE! HER GIRLFRIEND SHITS IN HER MOUTH! NASTY!"
I'm not fucking kidding you. Those are actual descriptions from the
study, uncut and unedited. Now, could you imagine having to read that sort
of shit 917,410 times and keep track of how many people downloaded it? (By
the way, the horsefucker image was in high demand. Fortunately, the
shiteater really wasn't. Unfortunately, images with descriptions relating
to urine or young girls scored highly too.)
The number of images the research team actually EXAMINED to verify if
the contents matched the description was ten thousand, which is still a hell
of a lot of porn to look at in two months. The results of their
examination, and some of the observations they made are unintentionally
hilarious. This is, without question, the highlight of the study. Check
out some of these passages (with the description in capital letters, and the
judge's determination in parentheses):
"SHE FINISHES SHITTING! SHE HAS SHIT SPECS [sp] ON HER
ASSHOLE!"
(although a close-up of the rectum, one of the judges unable
to perceive fecal matter)
"SHE CHOKES ON THICK DOG COCK! DOG SPERM ON HER SEXY LIPS!"
(although a depiction of a woman performing fellatio on a dog,
two of the judges unable to perceive the ejaculate)
"BRUNETTE HAS BIG BOOBS! SHE PISSES ON HER GIRLFRIEND'S FACE!"
(although a urophilic image, two of the judges concluded that
the urine was aimed at the chest, not the face)
"SHE HAS ONE FIST IN HER GIRLFRIEND'S ASSHOLE AND ANOTHER FIST
IN HER PUSSY!"
(examination of the picture revealed that only fingers were in
the anus; the research team interjudge reliability test did not
classify this as anal fisting)
I must reiterate that I am NOT making this shit up! I couldn't!
There is far more data in the study about their methods of testing and
categorizing images, which are amusing to read as well. Perhaps I find it
perversely funny to see phrases like "SHIT-EATING" and "DOG COCK" used in
such a matter-of-fact, antiseptic way all to further our understanding of
sociology. (I don't know much about psychology, so I'm not certain which
social science this would actually fall under.)
It becomes even more amusing when you realize that someone's tax
dollars paid for this.
God bless America.
(The original study at http://trfn.clpgh.org/guest/mrtext.html)
****************************************************************************
# (c)2000 aNAda e'zine aNAda057 .*. by Tyrant #
............................................................................