 ............................................................................
 ......::::..|...###.....###...###...###.....#######.....###......;;;;.......
 .....::::..-*-...###.....###..%##....###.....##..%##.....###....;;;;;;......
 ....::::....|...##.##....#####%##...##.##....##...%##...##.##..;;;;;;;;.....
 .....::::......#######...##.#####..#######...##...%##..#######..;;;;;;......
 ......::::....###...###..##...###.###...###..##..%##..###...###..;;####.....
 .............###.....######...%#####.....###############.....###..###.##....
 *****###****###***********************************************###**#**##****
     ## ##  ###    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 #
 ............................................................................
