This guy uses a bunch of that fancy data to show that pornography is and has always been limited in reach:
So not only have their proportions not increased relative to before, but porn-watchers are not even a majority of men — a bit more than one-third. For women, even less so — about one-sixth. Porn is not now, and never was, mainstream.
His combination of polling questions, magazine subscription, pornographic film revenue, and internet site traffic is certainly impressive, but I have to think he’s missing something. I think it is clear that the film/magazine sales would be falling off like other media in the face of the internet. But when evaluating internet trends or usage, it would be important to see how porn is defined. In some ways, porn can be defined more by how something is used than how or why it is created. Hell, a Victoria’s Secret catalog should probably be considered porn when not being used to shop for clothing. Considering nearly everyone masturbates, they’ve got to be thinking about something. Whether using conventional porn, other visual references that are not classified as porn, or simply creating the effect in their minds, in function, porn is mainstream and always has been, and there is nothing wrong with that. The majority just don’t get off on what we conventionally think of as porn.
- VWI
