[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/sci/ - Science & Math

View post   
File: 130 KB, 820x1024, 0000037869_20070216115830.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
1916738 No.1916738 [Reply] [Original]

http://io9.com/5666376/unexpected-pornography+seeking-behavior-found-in-dermatology-database

Who has been jacking off to herpes?

>> No.1916758

omg, who could!?

>> No.1916775

How do they know there weren't just a large number of people searching to try to identify the cause of their crotch rot because they were to embarrassed about it to see a professional?

>> No.1916797

>>1916775
This is possible, because there are a lot of crazy skin diseases that affect glabrous skin.

>> No.1916800

>>1916797
>>1916775
>Of all referrals, 14.3% originated from nonmedical (pornography/fetish) Web sites.

Don't think so guys.

>> No.1916811

>>1916800
who the hell would leave a porn site in hopes of finding something BETTER on a dermatology site?

>> No.1916812
File: 84 KB, 640x360, 1286869797497.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
1916812

>Of all referrals, 14.3% originated from nonmedical (pornography/fetish) Web sites.

>> No.1916824
File: 73 KB, 604x443, i-dunno-lol.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
1916824

>>1916811

>> No.1916827

>>1916811
Maybe it was a really disgusting porn site (ok no maybe there)?
Maybe they had to look up a term used in the porn site or they suspected an actor had a case or something?

>> No.1916845

>>1916812
>>1916811
>>1916800

My theory is that the people were watching porn, began masturbating, then noticed something strange on their genitals. Then they went to the dermatology site to see what was growing on their junk.

>> No.1916857

>>1916845
you.... don't know how referrals work, do you?

>> No.1916862
File: 27 KB, 1068x317, dermboobs.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
1916862

fuck this shit

>> No.1916893

Jesus. It works like this. A selection of sexually unsuccessful people seek out std images and intentionally desensitize themselves to the sight of them. This effectively expands their pool of sexual partners, and allows them to couple with partners who, herpes aside, would otherwise seem out of their reach. Plus, when it finally happens for one of these poor desperate people, the sight of herpes at the finish line won't ruin it for me.

>> No.1916904

>>1916893
This sounds like /b/.

>> No.1916917

> A selection of sexually unsuccessful people seek out std images and intentionally desensitize themselves to the sight of them
>>1916893won't ruin it for me.

Uh huh... and you're certain you're not the only one that does this?

>> No.1916913

>>1916857

no... :(

>> No.1916938
File: 22 KB, 453x365, aaaa1.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
1916938

<-- from the original journal article.

>> No.1916948

>>1916738
I'm not sure if I should be ashamed for already knowing this or not. I mean, some pedophiles on this site have admitted to using such databases and web-sites as their CP sources ._.

>> No.1916962

>>1916938
>Query by anatomic site plus age group

>Of all queries, 2.8% (10,307) specified an anatomic
>site and an age range (eg, 2-6 months). Of
>those, 33.4% (3442) specified a genital site, 56.7%
>(5840) specified children, and 43.3% (4467) specified
>adults. Of those specifying genital sites, 72.3% (2488)
>also specified children, whereas 27.7% (954) specified
>adults (relative risk, 1.48; 95% CI, 1.44-1.53). This
is summarized in Fig 3.

tl;dr: Three quarters of the people looking for porn on medical sites are pedos.

>> No.1917057

>>1916862
i lol'd

>> No.1917163
File: 122 KB, 780x629, 1286677009037.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
1917163

>>1916962
>tl;dr: Three quarters of the people looking for porn on medical sites are pedos.

Wow, inb4 medical sites are banned in the UK.

>> No.1917184

>>1916738
i don't get it? what's this about?

>> No.1917214

maybe people found weird shit on their penises and were interested in wanting to know what it was...

>> No.1917239

>When age group and anatomic site were specified, the relative risk of a child being requested (vs adult) was 1.48 (95% confidence interval 1.44-1.53).

>risk of a child being requested

Children are being risked because someone is searching them on a STD site?

>> No.1917277

>>1917239
this is what people actually believe

Children are also raped every time a cp video is played, and every time a lolicon image is opened.
No seriously, people believe this.
literally.

>> No.1917305

>>1917277
ITT: pedos defend their sickfuckery with strawman arguments.

>> No.1917311

>>1917305
not even a pedo
I'm just stating that people actually believe that shit.

>> No.1917317

>>1917311
pedo sympathizer then, at least.

>> No.1917378

>>1917317
explain that term, and I may or may not fit into it.
i don't exactly know what you mean by it.