Olives @olives@qoto.org

https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10508-023-02666-8
"A Re-evaluation of Online Pornography Use in Germany: A Combination of Web Tracking and Survey Data Analysis"

"Our analyses were based on data from a large-scale German online web tracking panel (N = 3018) gathered from June 2018 to June 2019. The study we present here has two parts: In the first part, we looked at group differences (gender and age) in tracked OPU."

"while relationship status, sexist attitudes, and social dominance orientation were not associated with OPU"
#sexology #Germany

Speaking of which, I might have to update one of the links in one of my science posts, although that is more to do with using a preprint until the paper got published. I didn't notice that got published until I reviewed the links.

I might try a new citation style in a few posts to make it easier to visually tell which map to which links.

Should I use a link to the publisher or the DOI URL in posts? The DOI URL might be more resilient to URL changes, although the link to the publisher is usually a bit more informative.

It might be a bit long though, and you will see why I sometimes like to stick to a bullet point style.

Working on a new post to see if a new style is better.

Generally, I'm avoiding linking to third party opinions here (other than avoiding bad takes, I'd like something more concrete), and instead focusing on actual scientific studies.

I added Dr. Lehmiller in as he did a relevant study (and he added useful context). I linked directly to an article written by him on his column in Psychology Today.

I'm aware that third party opinions can attract more interest though, and I've linked to a few of those before. I'm trying to avoid complicating things in this one.

On second thought, I changed the question mark as someone might not get the rhetorical question.

"upload moderation". New euphemism for mass-surveillance. #chatcontrol #privacy

Be careful with criticizing Big Tech lobbying against State "#privacy law" proposals as a few of these have similarities to #KOSA (censorship bills).

I wish we could collectively stop referring to someone's (tiny) blog where they post hot takes about current affairs as "news media". While I think people have the right to comment on current affairs, there is hardly even an editorial process.

If you have some thoughts on this, I'd be happy to hear them. I considered posting this more widely but I don't really want to make a loud statement about this matter in particular.

https://www.salon.com/2024/05/31/madonna-sued-for-pornography-without-warning-and-for-deceptively-marketing-her-world-tour/ Frivolous lawsuits.

Some thoughts on the term "hentai".

If you talk to someone from Japan, and you use this term, they might have no clue what you are talking about, unless they know a lot about the West.

It comes from part of a Japanese word which loosely means "sexual perversion" and is primarily used in the West. Even in the West though, it is more like slang than a formal term. Terms like animated porn, or if someone wants to exclude Western style content, anime porn are probably better in a more formal context. Or perhaps, it could be referenced as an erotic artform (one concern I've had is that someone might single it out in a rather racist / discriminatory fashion, rather than acknowledging it's artistic value as someone might any other form of art).

I'm not really arguing *against* using it, if you like using that term, but it's probably best used as a form of slang than in anything formal. And this is anecdotal, but from what I've seen, the term has actually been in decline (particularly in more formal settings) for a number of years.

If you'd like to see more of a bullet point style over a citation based free form text style, then please say so.

If you remember the earlier form of the post, it was basically a bunch of bullet points. As it gets longer, I might do more editing to make it flow better (and maybe add a few more citations, as the links wouldn't be as obtrusive).

If you are wondering, yes, I have considered using citations a lot more in this post. I'm just wondering if the links would be as accessible.

If you don't know him, Dr. Lehmiller is a renowned sex researcher. He recently did a study where he looked at the sorts of fantasies which people might have, and found that freaky fantasies are actually fairly common, and that it's not really a big deal.

That is slipped in at the end.

As a rule of thumb, I don't have the time to deal with people operating in bad faith in general, let alone, jumping through hoops for them.

I'm not going to *email* a bad faith person or whatever overly specific process they might like when they can read something perfectly fine.