All men watch porn, scientists find

I hear that proposals for their next scientific inquiries include: Is water wet? Is grass green? Do people need to eat?

I can't wait to hear the next revelation.

I would comment, but my streaming porn beckons.

Must heed the call.

Sean Hannity claimed he has never seen porn before. Perhaps they should bring him in for study.

He must be the exception to the rule, considering his highly esteemed credibility.

I think the headline should be altered to:

All men and cool women watch porn, scientists find

:)

Prilj~

That would be a good idea. LOL Sounds like fun!

I wonder why a scientist took this job up, this is purely a job of the economist. to fix some economic value to .....

“Pornography hasn't changed their perception of women or their relationship, which they all want to be as harmonious and fulfilling as possible,” he added.

Translation: I want more sex....

and something to eat, you, dinner, whatever...

Most of them are Mormon

And all of them would be liars..

Actually, I do find it interesting. There are many many many religions who oppose pornography, including my own to a certain extent. And the fact that absolutely no one up held that is very interesting.

I don't think the researcher actually went out and diversified his study, in all honesty. I am sure that there are some men that do not consume porn. (A VERY small percentage... LOL)

On that note, it is hard to get through life in certain areas without exposure depending upon the people and culture surrounding a person.

how is this surprising?

I guarentee you there is not one guy out there that has NEVER watched porn on purpose.

LOL I bet it would be hard to find one, but in some of the over-zealous religous "cults," there might be one.

It is not surprising though. It funny as h***.

in those cults... they watch twice as much porn

LOL Probably, but they do try to convince us otherwise...

LOL

LOL indeed! I apologise of my inability to adequately proof read what I write; "Specious" instead of "suspicious". I can only blame it on all the porn/erotica that I have consumed over the years.

I do have a question. What is this "consuming" of porn mean? Am I doing it wrong? Am I suppose to eat it or something? I use it and it still there.

I haven't figured out the thing about consuming, but I figured that they must have had edible undies on the brain.

***I kind of figured that was what you meant.

Wait, there is a negative impact to looking at porn?!? I'm screwed!

Chris in PHX, the study linked to below indicates you may be in trouble if you don't stop!

http://www.frc.org/pornography-effects (Executive Summary)

http://downloads.frc.org/EF/EF09K57.pdf (PDF file)

All men watch porn..? There's not enough crime to support that thesis.

Chris in PHX, the study linked to below indicates you may be in trouble if you don't stop!

The Family Research Council... <cough> Right.

Is there a single study or article they do that doesn't wind up fully supporting their votary positions? Porn, sex education, the efficacy of abstinence only sex education, homosexuality, stem-cells, religious indoctrination, creationism, evolution, magical wish granting plastic Jesuses, Democratic fascist liberal Godless heathens, etc et al...? On anything?

One might as well trust a study done by Larry Flint on the social good of evangelism and Christians... I'm sure it'd wind up supporting his view too.

No arms and they are still lying.

gotta have something to do between trips to the fridge..

The other 4% have no arms.

No , the other 4% are fully armed with opposite sex to comply with.

It could be worse, what if they'd only found twenty men that'd met up with some wide stanced politician at some airport?

We'd be really confused... and looking even worse right now!

The headline's bull@!$%#.

It should read "Male University of Montreal students watch porn."

This is an introductory stats exercise.

The sample isn't representative of "all men;" it's representative of University of Montreal students, and even within that group, it still has a margin of error of about +/- 22% (22.3606797749979 to be exact).

The sample isn't representative of "all men;" it's representative of University of Montreal students

And even within that group... only those that have hair growing on their palms... and have suddenly experienced vision loss.

Never? Never ever?? Never ever ever?

Be interesting to know your definition of Porn or what you consider 'looking' to be.

Now please, I'm not arguing or looking to fight, but thats a heck of a statement.

And the marshmallows I get, but of what earthly use is a pogo stick to sex?

Porn to me is magazines or photos depicting sexual acts or poses,also porn as in movies rated x.

As for the pogo stick just have your gal get naked and start jumping up and down on the pogo stick.You'll get the rest:)

Well your gal and my gal must not be the same kind of gal then because there ain't a darn thing about that picture that brings sex to mind for me.

But I'm happy for you, really I am ;)

pogo stick? hmm.

lol, the variety of sick minds in here is a wonderfaul thing ;) unstained fr

And then I peeked at the column, omg, go look, we may have a genius amongst us, no kidding!

the variety of sick minds in here is a wonderfaul thing

Yup, and it gets even better each day! LOL

See comment 15.2.

Dennis why you have to bug me with your intelligence. Is it that you wanted me to vote for your comment?

This comment:

The headline's bull@!$%#.

It should read "Male University of Montreal students watch porn."

This is an introductory stats exercise.

The sample isn't representative of "all men;" it's representative of University of Montreal students, and even within that group, it still has a margin of error of about +/- 22% (22.3606797749979 to be exact).

You are certainly a true statisician. 22% is a huge error in the social sciences. How is that being ignored? Wow!

LOL no, I just didn't want to repeat the post, so thanks for doing it for me. :)

This sort of crap is so often successfully passed off as statistically accurate because the average person hasn't had a basic stats course, or maybe doesn't remember much from it.

You think so? There could be larger phenomenon. The population seems not to know how to question things, or be skeptical. For instance, people are not accepting Climategate as a scandal, or they're trying to rationalize it. I witness this in many Newsvine forums. People have to understand the ethics in science, research and reporting; it is key. I like your ideas that's why I will add you as a friend :)

I'm not dismissing any climate change information, or that it is being caused by CO2's. I don't like the fact that governments only support one side of the debate, and I don't like scientists doing the same without showing the arguments. There are many reasons for climate change. However, Climategate disrespected the scientific method, and that's a problem.

Also, the globe isn't warming. In fact, climate change is causing some regions to cool. That's why the correct term to use is climate change. In the beginning, there was propaganda saying there was global warming, until scientists and others corrected that.

The fact there is a disagreement within the scientific community shows that skepticism is necessary. Also, Climategate shows how government, corporations and scientists can blow things out of proportion and use an innocent observation like climate change to do harm elsewhere.

Some people have this idea that because individuals point out Climategate, they are arguing against climate change, which that is completely false. In no way, we can treat two things the same. It's the corruption involved that's the problem. The scientists that disagree with CO2 causes are not disagreeing that climate change is not real. I only argue that I don't like the biases of everything and that's it.

About the population thing, yeah, it could be imputed to superstition, myth, storytelling and so on. It's a sad thing, however. Thanks for the discussion, happy holidays!