Do you have adblock enabled?
 
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Daily Dot)   PornHub data reveals the exact moment Denver fans turned off the Super Bowl   (dailydot.com ) divider line
    More: Sad, Super Bowl, Lisa Ann  
•       •       •

16167 clicks; posted to Main » on 04 Feb 2014 at 1:49 PM (2 years ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



84 Comments     (+0 »)
 
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest
 
2014-02-04 01:39:28 PM  
The data is meaningless alone, maybe 9pm is when parents put their kids to sleep and get a little "me time." You'd have to compare that to normal trends around the 9pm hour to see if a rapid uptick is normal at about that time.
 
2014-02-04 01:46:59 PM  
denver is one hour ahead of seattle.  are those the local times of the respective cities or EST?  looks like the latter.
 
GCD
2014-02-04 01:52:41 PM  
This isn't the first time they've tracked the traffic during a big event. It rather amuses me that they continue to do this.
 
2014-02-04 01:53:03 PM  
You don't know me, PornHub!
 
2014-02-04 01:53:11 PM  

nmrsnr: The data is meaningless alone, maybe 9pm is when parents put their kids to sleep and get a little "me time." You'd have to compare that to normal trends around the 9pm hour to see if a rapid uptick is normal at about that time.


Yeah but they were all watching that video of a chick inserting a football on loop.
 
2014-02-04 01:53:14 PM  
They just wanted to see somebody get;lucky that day
 
2014-02-04 01:55:22 PM  
www.sportsnet.ca

Was it right about there?

Yeah.
 
2014-02-04 01:55:34 PM  
The pornhub pussy is watching you masturbate from the ceiling

/or something
 
2014-02-04 01:55:42 PM  
Interesting - the Broncos were beating themselves even earlier.
 
2014-02-04 01:56:05 PM  

cgraves67: You don't know me, PornHub!


*sigh*. They know me.
 
2014-02-04 01:56:24 PM  
The beat-down, followed by the beat-off.
 
2014-02-04 01:57:24 PM  
What is this "PornHub" you speak of?
 
2014-02-04 01:59:53 PM  
Couldn't Pornhub answer that age old question that's flummoxed science forever: just how many gay people are there?

You don't get a much more precise metric that what saucy things watch in secret.
 
2014-02-04 02:00:15 PM  
Wheres levannan to share some brain damage?
 
2014-02-04 02:00:25 PM  

GCD: This isn't the first time they've tracked the traffic during a big event. It rather amuses me that they continue to do this.


Boston's traffic spiked right after they lost the SCF to Chicago.
 
2014-02-04 02:02:05 PM  

Bungles: Couldn't Pornhub answer that age old question that's flummoxed science forever: just how many gay people are there?

You don't get a much more precise metric that what saucy things watch in secret.


If you're going by gay pornography viewership rates, it's way more than the 10% thrown around, but since pornography usage doesn't necessarily correlate directly with preferences, that's a difficult to prove idea.
 
2014-02-04 02:02:42 PM  

nmrsnr: The data is meaningless alone, maybe 9pm is when parents put their kids to sleep and get a little "me time." You'd have to compare that to normal trends around the 9pm hour to see if a rapid uptick is normal at about that time.


Actually someone from Pornhub tweeted that this graph  isthe variance from the average use at the time on the graph, so it is exactly what you're looking for.
 
2014-02-04 02:04:52 PM  
They wanted to watch someone else take it in the ass. Who can blame them.
 
2014-02-04 02:05:04 PM  

doubled99: They just wanted to see somebody get;lucky that day


The wankery on the field was inspirational, I would think. Not to mention the clusterfark. Why, it was raining Sasha Grey that day.
 
2014-02-04 02:05:08 PM  
Wasn't just Denver fans. Anyone who had no stake in the game tuned out after the first play in the second half. Who wants to watch an aging veteran try to force a comeback against a dominant defense?
 
2014-02-04 02:06:43 PM  

drunk_bouncnbaloruber: GCD: This isn't the first time they've tracked the traffic during a big event. It rather amuses me that they continue to do this.

Boston's traffic spiked right after they lost the SCF to Chicago.


Seriously - if the NSA wants to start gathering date somewhere meaningful, this is the place to get it.
 
2014-02-04 02:06:58 PM  

Bungles: Couldn't Pornhub answer that age old question that's flummoxed science forever: just how many gay people are there?

You don't get a much more precise metric that what saucy things watch in secret.



I ACCIDENTALLY CLICKED ON THAT transformer!!! CHECK THE TIME THAT IT WAS ONSCREEN PORNHUB!! CHECK THE TIIIIME!!!


/NTTAWWT
 
2014-02-04 02:07:49 PM  

H31N0US: Wasn't just Denver fans. Anyone who had no stake in the game tuned out after the first play in the second half. Who wants to watch an aging veteran try to force a comeback against a dominant defense?



Football fans.
 
2014-02-04 02:08:01 PM  
I was using it the whole game.
 
2014-02-04 02:08:37 PM  

ikanreed: Bungles: Couldn't Pornhub answer that age old question that's flummoxed science forever: just how many gay people are there?

You don't get a much more precise metric that what saucy things watch in secret.

If you're going by gay pornography viewership rates, it's way more than the 10% thrown around, but since pornography usage doesn't necessarily correlate directly with preferences, that's a difficult to prove idea.


Also, pornhub isn't actually a representative sample of ... well anything.  I consume porn, but I've never been to pornhub... so yeah.

Also, I will admit to watching porn that isn't necessarily representative of my taste in the real world.  Anime, manga, trans, etc.  But my real life sexual preferences are more or less mainstream.  Sometimes, it's just fun to watch.
 
2014-02-04 02:08:39 PM  

SlagginOff: nmrsnr: The data is meaningless alone, maybe 9pm is when parents put their kids to sleep and get a little "me time." You'd have to compare that to normal trends around the 9pm hour to see if a rapid uptick is normal at about that time.

Actually someone from Pornhub tweeted that this graph  isthe variance from the average use at the time on the graph, so it is exactly what you're looking for.


If that's the case then nevermind, carry on.
 
2014-02-04 02:08:58 PM  
Broncos fans decided to watch someone else get bent over and trained.

/still no greens.  sigh...
 
2014-02-04 02:09:33 PM  

DROxINxTHExWIND: H31N0US: Wasn't just Denver fans. Anyone who had no stake in the game tuned out after the first play in the second half. Who wants to watch an aging veteran try to force a comeback against a dominant defense?


Football fans.


Not this one. That was terrible football.
 
2014-02-04 02:12:01 PM  

ikanreed: Bungles: Couldn't Pornhub answer that age old question that's flummoxed science forever: just how many gay people are there?

You don't get a much more precise metric that what saucy things watch in secret.

If you're going by gay pornography viewership rates, it's way more than the 10% thrown around, but since pornography usage doesn't necessarily correlate directly with preferences, that's a difficult to prove idea.


If you masturbate to two dudes farking each other, I've got news for you: your gay. Or at least bi. But you ain't hetero.

So yeah, they should be able to get an accurate count of non-straight males. Everyone likes lesbians though, so you're not going to get any meaningful count of non-straight females. Maybe you could just use Jezebel visitor numbers for that?
 
2014-02-04 02:14:29 PM  

H31N0US: DROxINxTHExWIND: H31N0US: Wasn't just Denver fans. Anyone who had no stake in the game tuned out after the first play in the second half. Who wants to watch an aging veteran try to force a comeback against a dominant defense?


Football fans.

Not this one. That was terrible football.


Or amusing, depending on how you want to look at it.  Tragic/comic, maybe?
 
2014-02-04 02:15:32 PM  
img.gawkerassets.com
 
2014-02-04 02:16:09 PM  

That Guy Jeff: ikanreed: Bungles: Couldn't Pornhub answer that age old question that's flummoxed science forever: just how many gay people are there?

You don't get a much more precise metric that what saucy things watch in secret.

If you're going by gay pornography viewership rates, it's way more than the 10% thrown around, but since pornography usage doesn't necessarily correlate directly with preferences, that's a difficult to prove idea.

If you masturbate to two dudes farking each other, I've got news for you: your gay. Or at least bi. But you ain't hetero.

So yeah, they should be able to get an accurate count of non-straight males. Everyone likes lesbians though, so you're not going to get any meaningful count of non-straight females. Maybe you could just use Jezebel visitor numbers for that?


Congratulations on not understanding, idiot.  In your rush to declare people gay, you've neglected that not every group of people views pornography in equal quantities.
 
2014-02-04 02:16:40 PM  

ikanreed: Bungles: Couldn't Pornhub answer that age old question that's flummoxed science forever: just how many gay people are there?

You don't get a much more precise metric that what saucy things watch in secret.

If you're going by gay pornography viewership rates, it's way more than the 10% thrown around, but since pornography usage doesn't necessarily correlate directly with preferences, that's a difficult to prove idea.



But.....ummmmm, so I've heard.... PornHub and similar sites don't ask if you're looking for straight or gay pornography (or something in-between).

To get started, have two sets of check-boxes: I am a man/woman and I like men/women.

Here is a totally SFW screen capture, but I'll link it instead of image displaying so that prying eyes don't think you're launching into an in-work hottub session.

http://img.fark.net/images/cache/1/1T/fark_1TRM65vTYSntdtw3iivY1ioIC us .png?t=Y0ilxXvAICuWeytMythEOA&f=1392008400

That's a vast amount of very specific data.
 
2014-02-04 02:16:45 PM  

H31N0US: DROxINxTHExWIND: H31N0US: Wasn't just Denver fans. Anyone who had no stake in the game tuned out after the first play in the second half. Who wants to watch an aging veteran try to force a comeback against a dominant defense?


Football fans.

Not this one. That was terrible football.


The hubby and I aren't real football fans but we try to listen or watch the superbowl every year just so we feel like were part of our culture. This year we were listening on the radio during a long drive and we both thought that first play in the second half was a highlight from the first half. Took a moment to sink in. And then we turned off the radio.
 
2014-02-04 02:17:44 PM  

DROxINxTHExWIND: Bungles: Couldn't Pornhub answer that age old question that's flummoxed science forever: just how many gay people are there?

You don't get a much more precise metric that what saucy things watch in secret.


I ACCIDENTALLY CLICKED ON THAT transformer!!! CHECK THE TIME THAT IT WAS ONSCREEN PORNHUB!! CHECK THE TIIIIME!!!


/NTTAWWT


You wouldn't believe how many times that keeps happening to me.
 
2014-02-04 02:19:56 PM  

DROxINxTHExWIND: Bungles: Couldn't Pornhub answer that age old question that's flummoxed science forever: just how many gay people are there?

You don't get a much more precise metric that what saucy things watch in secret.


I ACCIDENTALLY CLICKED ON THAT transformer!!! CHECK THE TIME THAT IT WAS ONSCREEN PORNHUB!! CHECK THE TIIIIME!!!


/NTTAWWT


Look, I wasn't interested in that at all.  Then I was only very slightly interested in it out of morbid curiosity. Then I grew a bit more interested in it. Then it became just interesting. Then it was very interesting, Then is was brutally poundingly interesting! THEN IT WAS THE MOST INTERESTING THING EVER!!!!111!!

Then I wasn't interested at all.
 
2014-02-04 02:20:49 PM  

PC LOAD LETTER: I was using it the whole game.


Which was especially bad, considering you were in your parent's living room. With them.
 
2014-02-04 02:21:14 PM  
The highest US ratings for the Super Bowl were in Kansas City. Because schadenfreude is the best freude.
 
2014-02-04 02:22:35 PM  
I'm sure the massively recirculated tweet that pronhub put out during the game has absolutely nothing to do with it, nosiree.

"Hmm, pornhub eh? Well, not much more to see here, might as well check that out."
 
2014-02-04 02:23:55 PM  
I actually didn't give up until 36-0.
 
2014-02-04 02:24:12 PM  

Bungles: Couldn't Pornhub answer that age old question that's flummoxed science forever: just how many gay people are there?

You don't get a much more precise metric that what saucy things watch in secret.


That probably won't work quite so easily. Guys watch lesbian porn, hell the majority is geared to them and I can't watch most of it without wincing in sympathy, and plenty of girls watch gay porn ...or so I hear once a month when I swap porn recs with friends.
 
2014-02-04 02:25:16 PM  

That Guy Jeff: ikanreed: Bungles: Couldn't Pornhub answer that age old question that's flummoxed science forever: just how many gay people are there?

You don't get a much more precise metric that what saucy things watch in secret.

If you're going by gay pornography viewership rates, it's way more than the 10% thrown around, but since pornography usage doesn't necessarily correlate directly with preferences, that's a difficult to prove idea.

If you masturbate to two dudes farking each other, I've got news for you: your gay. Or at least bi. But you ain't hetero.

So yeah, they should be able to get an accurate count of non-straight males. Everyone likes lesbians though, so you're not going to get any meaningful count of non-straight females. Maybe you could just use Jezebel visitor numbers for that?


I know some women who watch gay porn.  So you're not even going to get an accurate estimation there.
 
2014-02-04 02:27:09 PM  
It's the Safety Dance.

img.fark.net
 
2014-02-04 02:27:16 PM  

ikanreed: That Guy Jeff: ikanreed: Bungles: Couldn't Pornhub answer that age old question that's flummoxed science forever: just how many gay people are there?

You don't get a much more precise metric that what saucy things watch in secret.

If you're going by gay pornography viewership rates, it's way more than the 10% thrown around, but since pornography usage doesn't necessarily correlate directly with preferences, that's a difficult to prove idea.

If you masturbate to two dudes farking each other, I've got news for you: your gay. Or at least bi. But you ain't hetero.

So yeah, they should be able to get an accurate count of non-straight males. Everyone likes lesbians though, so you're not going to get any meaningful count of non-straight females. Maybe you could just use Jezebel visitor numbers for that?

Congratulations on not understanding, idiot.  In your rush to declare people gay, you've neglected that not every group of people views pornography in equal quantities.


Oooh, a feisty one! So, your argument is that some groups of people use pornography less, so you won't be able to tell how many people are in the groups based on pornography viewing. Except, if we knew for a fact that certain groups use less pornography (and we knew by how much less), we could easily still do the math.

But you, being smart, probably already know that. So you must think certain groups use more or less pornography at rates that unknown to science. You know what saying "this group uses more/less pornography that this group" without hard numbers is called? STEREOTYPING. Bigot.
 
2014-02-04 02:29:36 PM  

lemonysprite: Bungles: Couldn't Pornhub answer that age old question that's flummoxed science forever: just how many gay people are there?

You don't get a much more precise metric that what saucy things watch in secret.

That probably won't work quite so easily. Guys watch lesbian porn, hell the majority is geared to them and I can't watch most of it without wincing in sympathy, and plenty of girls watch gay porn ...or so I hear once a month when I swap porn recs with friends.


But I'd imagine that the questions of "proportion of girls who watch gay porn" is a metric that's far more accurately obtained through traditional means - such as interviews and questionnaires - than getting middle aged married men to admit to researchers that they wish their wife had a beard and love-flute.

I'm not saying that could provide the insights alone, but when combined with other research, I'm sure that's something more accurate that we currently have.
 
2014-02-04 02:30:08 PM  
Real footbal fans visit Xhamster
 
2014-02-04 02:35:54 PM  

That Guy Jeff: Except, if we knew for a fact that certain groups use less pornography (and we knew by how much less), we could easily still do the math.


We don't, dummy, except by back comparing this same data to things like the surveys that suggested 10%ish in the first place.  Thus invalidating your conclusion by begging the question.
 
2014-02-04 02:37:56 PM  

under a mountain: Real footbal fans visit Xhamster



Richard Gere likes football?
 
2014-02-04 02:39:35 PM  

That Guy Jeff: If you masturbate to two dudes farking each other, I've got news for you: your gay. Or at least bi. But you ain't hetero.


Maybe, but the amount of times I've pulled up the pterodactyl porn video does not correspond to the amount by which I am aroused by pterodactyls.
 
2014-02-04 02:43:15 PM  

ikanreed: That Guy Jeff: Except, if we knew for a fact that certain groups use less pornography (and we knew by how much less), we could easily still do the math.

We don't, dummy, except by back comparing this same data to things like the surveys that suggested 10%ish in the first place.  Thus invalidating your conclusion by begging the question.


I repeat:

But you, being smart, probably already know that. So you must think certain groups use more or less pornography at rates that unknown to science. You know what saying "this group uses more/less pornography than this group" without hard numbers is called? STEREOTYPING. Bigot.
 
2014-02-04 02:46:47 PM  
what's a porn hub?
 
2014-02-04 02:48:45 PM  

some_beer_drinker: what's a porn hub?


If this is a serious question, then you are probably going to look like this in a week....

ssfamilyguy.wikispaces.com
 
2014-02-04 02:49:13 PM  

Bungles: Couldn't Pornhub answer that age old question that's flummoxed science forever: just how many gay people are there?

You don't get a much more precise metric that what saucy things watch in secret.


Answer: 97% of males are lesbians.
 
2014-02-04 02:54:24 PM  

That Guy Jeff: But you, being smart, probably already know that. So you must think certain groups use more or less pornography at rates that unknown to science. You know what saying "this group uses more/less pornography than this group" without hard numbers is called? STEREOTYPING. Bigot.


Literally-the-opposite-of-what-I-was-doing.txt.

"How dare you not draw a conclusion about gay people from irresponsibly incomplete data!!" is what I heard.
 
2014-02-04 02:59:25 PM  
They're assuming people are only doing one thing at a time. I can watch a football game and be on the internet at the same time. It's the ideal game for that. Between replays and commercials, you only have to watch maybe 20% of the time.
 
2014-02-04 03:02:00 PM  

bingethinker: They're assuming people are only doing one thing at a time. I can watch a football game and be on the internet at the same time. It's the ideal game for that. Between replays and commercials, you only have to watch maybe 20% of the time.


Isn't porn-watching a more mono-pasttime than most?
 
2014-02-04 03:05:26 PM  

d23: some_beer_drinker: what's a porn hub?

If this is a serious question, then you are probably going to look like this in a week....

[ssfamilyguy.wikispaces.com image 364x313]


I can assure you that habitual masturbation did does not make your dominant arm disproportionately more defined.
 
2014-02-04 03:11:41 PM  
What a witty and original headline. Surely the kind of stuff that makes the main page.
 
2014-02-04 03:14:14 PM  
What time did they leave the stadium?


prod.static.broncos.clubs.nfl.com
 
2014-02-04 03:20:43 PM  

ikanreed: That Guy Jeff: But you, being smart, probably already know that. So you must think certain groups use more or less pornography at rates that unknown to science. You know what saying "this group uses more/less pornography than this group" without hard numbers is called? STEREOTYPING. Bigot.

Literally-the-opposite-of-what-I-was-doing.txt.

"How dare you not draw a conclusion about gay people from irresponsibly incomplete data!!" is what I heard.


And what I hear is "you can't use pornography viewing to estimate the number of non-heteros because non-heteros look at more||less pornography than heteros!"

Let's just outline the argument here to make sure we are on the right page: It's likely that everyone looks at porn, but even if there are some weirdos that don't, we can assume they are more or less evenly distributed between sexualities. To do otherwise would be to stereotype that group, unless you've got real data to back it up.

In either case, data on difference or non-stereotyping equal distribution, we could then take a sampling of porn viewers, and if the porn they were viewing was of certain types we could infer their sexuality. Now, like I said, this wouldn't work for lesbians because lesbian porn is enjoyed by hetero males and, presumably, non-hetero females. But, and here's where I'm making a stereotype, man on man is only enjoyed by non-hetero males.

Basically, you made the wrong move if you wanted to discredit the idea. The flaw isn't in different groups having different porn viewership. That avenue left you open to attack. What you wanted to say was that the assumption that only non-hetero people like man on man porn is a stereotype. That doesn't leave you open to a "bigot!" counter-attack. Granted, I still think you're wrong, but it would have been a better method of attack.

So, now that's cleared up, I'll reiterate my base position: watching man on man porn is a good indication of being non-hetero (regardless of what you yourself might believe yourself to be), and if we figure out the ratio of people watching pretty much anything else to people watching man on man we could come up with a reasonable ratio of hetero males to non-hetero males in the general population, probably even more accurately than self reporting surveys would be.

If you take issue with the idea that hetero males don't watch men farking each other in the ass, that's fine. But we are going to have to agree to disagree. :)
 
2014-02-04 03:22:19 PM  
Data also reveals that residents of Enumclaw really like to watch horses getting farked by men from Seattle.
 
2014-02-04 03:27:00 PM  

That Guy Jeff: And what I hear is "you can't use pornography viewing to estimate the number of non-heteros because non-heteros look at more||less pornography than heteros!"


And they might.  The end.
 
2014-02-04 03:29:31 PM  

That Guy Jeff: You know what saying "this group uses more/less pornography that this group" without hard numbers is called? STEREOTYPING. Bigot.


NO!

THIS IS STEREOTYPING!

mythsfactsfeelings.files.wordpress.com

/ ALL CAPS CAUSE IT GOES TO 11
 
2014-02-04 03:31:35 PM  

Bungles: Couldn't Pornhub answer that age old question that's flummoxed science forever: just how many gay people are there?

You don't get a much more precise metric that what saucy things watch in secret.


"We're all a little gay, and I can prove it."
 - Ron White

/pretty funny routine
 
2014-02-04 03:34:39 PM  
 
2014-02-04 03:39:52 PM  
End of the 3rd. Everyone left the party, and the host was saying "If I ever host a Super Bowl party again when the Broncos are playing, just kick me in the nuts."

/holding him to that.
 
2014-02-04 03:44:30 PM  

ikanreed: That Guy Jeff: Except, if we knew for a fact that certain groups use less pornography (and we knew by how much less), we could easily still do the math.

We don't, dummy, except by back comparing this same data to things like the surveys that suggested 10%ish in the first place.  Thus invalidating your conclusion by begging the question.


Is that... a correct usage of "begging the question"?  On the internet?
 
2014-02-04 03:56:04 PM  

That Guy Jeff: ikanreed: That Guy Jeff: But you, being smart, probably already know that. So you must think certain groups use more or less pornography at rates that unknown to science. You know what saying "this group uses more/less pornography than this group" without hard numbers is called? STEREOTYPING. Bigot.

Literally-the-opposite-of-what-I-was-doing.txt.

"How dare you not draw a conclusion about gay people from irresponsibly incomplete data!!" is what I heard.

And what I hear is "you can't use pornography viewing to estimate the number of non-heteros because non-heteros look at more||less pornography than heteros!"

Let's just outline the argument here to make sure we are on the right page: It's likely that everyone looks at porn, but even if there are some weirdos that don't, we can assume they are more or less evenly distributed between sexualities. To do otherwise would be to stereotype that group, unless you've got real data to back it up.

In either case, data on difference or non-stereotyping equal distribution, we could then take a sampling of porn viewers, and if the porn they were viewing was of certain types we could infer their sexuality. Now, like I said, this wouldn't work for lesbians because lesbian porn is enjoyed by hetero males and, presumably, non-hetero females. But, and here's where I'm making a stereotype, man on man is only enjoyed by non-hetero males.

Basically, you made the wrong move if you wanted to discredit the idea. The flaw isn't in different groups having different porn viewership. That avenue left you open to attack. What you wanted to say was that the assumption that only non-hetero people like man on man porn is a stereotype. That doesn't leave you open to a "bigot!" counter-attack. Granted, I still think you're wrong, but it would have been a better method of attack.

So, now that's cleared up, I'll reiterate my base position: watching man on man porn is a good indication of being non-hetero (regardless of what you yourself might beli ...


Sexuality is a continuum. The world is far less black/white than you seem to think it is. Your idea fails to account for bisexuality. Besides, you even admit your calculations would be based on assumptions, yet somehow you're confident this would give an accurate count. Even assuming bisexuality is a myth, your idea doesn't hold water.
 
2014-02-04 04:01:39 PM  

That Guy Jeff: ikanreed: Bungles: Couldn't Pornhub answer that age old question that's flummoxed science forever: just how many gay people are there?

You don't get a much more precise metric that what saucy things watch in secret.

If you're going by gay pornography viewership rates, it's way more than the 10% thrown around, but since pornography usage doesn't necessarily correlate directly with preferences, that's a difficult to prove idea.

If you masturbate to two dudes farking each other, I've got news for you: your gay. Or at least bi. But you ain't hetero.

So yeah, they should be able to get an accurate count of non-straight males. Everyone likes lesbians though, so you're not going to get any meaningful count of non-straight females. Maybe you could just use Jezebel visitor numbers for that?


This, if you are a guy and you corral tadpoles to two or more guys you have the ghey NTTAWWT but you do.
 
2014-02-04 04:05:43 PM  

stewbert: That Guy Jeff: ikanreed: That Guy Jeff: But you, being smart, probably already know that. So you must think certain groups use more or less pornography at rates that unknown to science. You know what saying "this group uses more/less pornography than this group" without hard numbers is called? STEREOTYPING. Bigot.

Literally-the-opposite-of-what-I-was-doing.txt.

"How dare you not draw a conclusion about gay people from irresponsibly incomplete data!!" is what I heard.

And what I hear is "you can't use pornography viewing to estimate the number of non-heteros because non-heteros look at more||less pornography than heteros!"

Let's just outline the argument here to make sure we are on the right page: It's likely that everyone looks at porn, but even if there are some weirdos that don't, we can assume they are more or less evenly distributed between sexualities. To do otherwise would be to stereotype that group, unless you've got real data to back it up.

In either case, data on difference or non-stereotyping equal distribution, we could then take a sampling of porn viewers, and if the porn they were viewing was of certain types we could infer their sexuality. Now, like I said, this wouldn't work for lesbians because lesbian porn is enjoyed by hetero males and, presumably, non-hetero females. But, and here's where I'm making a stereotype, man on man is only enjoyed by non-hetero males.

Basically, you made the wrong move if you wanted to discredit the idea. The flaw isn't in different groups having different porn viewership. That avenue left you open to attack. What you wanted to say was that the assumption that only non-hetero people like man on man porn is a stereotype. That doesn't leave you open to a "bigot!" counter-attack. Granted, I still think you're wrong, but it would have been a better method of attack.

So, now that's cleared up, I'll reiterate my base position: watching man on man porn is a good indication of being non-hetero (regardless of what you your ...


Oh, I took it into account, that why I've been careful to say "hetero" and "non-hetero" instead of "gay", because you're right: bisexuality messed up the ability to tell if the viewer is gay or not. However, I still think it's a good method for determining if someone is hetero or not.
 
2014-02-04 04:06:23 PM  

Tricky Chicken: d23: some_beer_drinker: what's a porn hub?

If this is a serious question, then you are probably going to look like this in a week....

[ssfamilyguy.wikispaces.com image 364x313]

I can assure you that habitual masturbation did does not make your dominant arm disproportionately more defined.


Really?

(Looks down at arms)

Are you sure?

(Looks again)

Dammit. You're probably right.
 
2014-02-04 04:08:36 PM  

That Guy Jeff: stewbert: That Guy Jeff: ikanreed: That Guy Jeff: But you, being smart, probably already know that. So you must think certain groups use more or less pornography at rates that unknown to science. You know what saying "this group uses more/less pornography than this group" without hard numbers is called? STEREOTYPING. Bigot.

Literally-the-opposite-of-what-I-was-doing.txt.

"How dare you not draw a conclusion about gay people from irresponsibly incomplete data!!" is what I heard.

And what I hear is "you can't use pornography viewing to estimate the number of non-heteros because non-heteros look at more||less pornography than heteros!"

Let's just outline the argument here to make sure we are on the right page: It's likely that everyone looks at porn, but even if there are some weirdos that don't, we can assume they are more or less evenly distributed between sexualities. To do otherwise would be to stereotype that group, unless you've got real data to back it up.

In either case, data on difference or non-stereotyping equal distribution, we could then take a sampling of porn viewers, and if the porn they were viewing was of certain types we could infer their sexuality. Now, like I said, this wouldn't work for lesbians because lesbian porn is enjoyed by hetero males and, presumably, non-hetero females. But, and here's where I'm making a stereotype, man on man is only enjoyed by non-hetero males.

Basically, you made the wrong move if you wanted to discredit the idea. The flaw isn't in different groups having different porn viewership. That avenue left you open to attack. What you wanted to say was that the assumption that only non-hetero people like man on man porn is a stereotype. That doesn't leave you open to a "bigot!" counter-attack. Granted, I still think you're wrong, but it would have been a better method of attack.

So, now that's cleared up, I'll reiterate my base position: watching man on man porn is a good indication of being non-hetero (regardless of wha ...


You have a pretty homophobic definition of heterosexual. Whatever.
 
2014-02-04 04:19:04 PM  

H31N0US: DROxINxTHExWIND: H31N0US: Wasn't just Denver fans. Anyone who had no stake in the game tuned out after the first play in the second half. Who wants to watch an aging veteran try to force a comeback against a dominant defense?


Football fans.

Not this one. That was terrible football.


Not if you're a hawks fan
 
2014-02-04 04:21:53 PM  

TheShavingofOccam123: [www.sportsnet.ca image 431x242]

Was it right about there?

Yeah.


i.huffpost.com
First thing I thought of after that happened...
 
2014-02-04 05:14:15 PM  
I am confused if this thread is supposed to make Hetero male "A" logically infer something about Hetero male pr0n viewing. Do I need a World Almanac or post-doctoral journal to tell me that straight guys pretty much don't like to partake in the gay butt-sex viewership?  Completely baffling.  I also can't tell if someone's mad at the other,  and if so, about what.  I don't even think I drank last night and this thread is all over the place.  Oh well.
 
2014-02-04 05:21:30 PM  

SlothB77: denver is one hour ahead of seattle.  are those the local times of the respective cities or EST?  looks like the latter.


If it's the latter, then it would be more accurate.  The game was shown across the whole nation at the same time, live-ish.

If they didn't, bookies on the west coast could make a fortune on idiots betting on the team that already lost.  Imagine your bookie giving you 30 point spread for you to bet on the Broncos, how stupid would you be to not take it.  Well, pretty dumb if the game is over.
 
2014-02-04 05:43:54 PM  

Dr.Zom: The highest US ratings for the Super Bowl were in Kansas City. Because schadenfreude is the best freude.


That's because nobody around here watches Pornhub.

...or so I'm told.
 
2014-02-04 05:57:39 PM  

Stinkyy: I am confused if this thread is supposed to make Hetero male "A" logically infer something about Hetero male pr0n viewing. Do I need a World Almanac or post-doctoral journal to tell me that straight guys pretty much don't like to partake in the gay butt-sex viewership?  Completely baffling.  I also can't tell if someone's mad at the other,  and if so, about what.  I don't even think I drank last night and this thread is all over the place.  Oh well.


Yeah but what if straight guys like watching a woman give a beej? Which side of the deal is the guy imagining he's on? The giver or the givee? Study it out.
 
2014-02-04 07:04:58 PM  

TheShavingofOccam123: Stinkyy: I am confused if this thread is supposed to make Hetero male "A" logically infer something about Hetero male pr0n viewing. Do I need a World Almanac or post-doctoral journal to tell me that straight guys pretty much don't like to partake in the gay butt-sex viewership?  Completely baffling.  I also can't tell if someone's mad at the other,  and if so, about what.  I don't even think I drank last night and this thread is all over the place.  Oh well.

Yeah but what if straight guys like watching a woman give a beej? Which side of the deal is the guy imagining he's on? The giver or the givee? Study it out.


Haha, or if a dude is beefing some chick, are there stats on whether viewers are tuning-in because the girl is peculiarly masculine and they're supposed to be getting off to gay pr0n because they're pretending it's a guy?  You don't know, man!   You just don't know!!!
 
2014-02-04 09:40:22 PM  
ts1.mm.bing.net
First image from Seattle victory riot.
 
2014-02-04 10:58:24 PM  
I have never watched porn in my life or even masturbated. My body is the temple of the Holy Spirit. Repent now, the fires of hell are real and....

Dah who am I kidding. Where's my Tory Lane bookmark?
 
2014-02-04 11:21:56 PM  

Tricky Chicken: DROxINxTHExWIND: Bungles: Couldn't Pornhub answer that age old question that's flummoxed science forever: just how many gay people are there?

You don't get a much more precise metric that what saucy things watch in secret.


I ACCIDENTALLY CLICKED ON THAT transformer!!! CHECK THE TIME THAT IT WAS ONSCREEN PORNHUB!! CHECK THE TIIIIME!!!


/NTTAWWT

Look, I wasn't interested in that at all.  Then I was only very slightly interested in it out of morbid curiosity. Then I grew a bit more interested in it. Then it became just interesting. Then it was very interesting, Then is was brutally poundingly interesting! THEN IT WAS THE MOST INTERESTING THING EVER!!!!111!!

Then I wasn't interested at all.


Damn.  I need a cigarette...
 
2014-02-05 12:10:11 AM  

WorkingInParadise: PC LOAD LETTER: I was using it the whole game.

Which was especially bad, considering you were in your parent's living room. With them.


This dick won't suck itself.
 
2014-02-05 12:32:44 AM  
Well, the Superb Owl is obviously completely heterosexual judging by headlines of news articles chronicling it:

"Seattle scores quickly and often, pounding the Denver Broncos 43-8 to win Super Bowl"

etc
 
Displayed 84 of 84 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter






In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report