All I got in my xmas hamper was a shitload of spam
Tuesday, 26 December 2006 — stormyStormyblog has been going for about three months now, and of course, a some spam as well as the genuine comments. It is actually a huge problem for the blogosphere, check out the Akismet stats. But of course, I could always make a pie chart (never much prompting needed!)
Imagine my surprise, if that is the right word (annoyance more like), when on 25 December (aka xmas day), I was inundated with spam.
From the blog’s inception to midnight on xmas day, Akismet had found 145 spam comments. So of course, getting 35 in one 24-hour period was unusual. What wasn’t unusual was that the majority of spam was porn-related, that seems to be a given.
What was actually unusual was that the percentage of non-porn spam was much higher than average—normally, it’s damn-near all porn-related.
Anyway, as a marketing type person, and a radfem, I thought I’d do a quick analysis of the content of pornie-spam. Looking at this spam (or anything promoted) through advertising eyes almost always reveals what the advertiser (or supplier) thinks of as the ‘best bits’ of his/her product. As porn is the product being promoted, what do these advertisers think of as the ‘best bits’?
Methodology: OK, it’s rough, but I quickly went through the 34 bits of spam and pulled out the ‘key’ words. Later, when I made the bar chart below, I did further group some of the key words into related categories.
Surprise, surprise, rape was mentioned in 30 of the 31 porn-spams. It may actually have been mentioned in the 31st, however, the WP-Akismet dashboard now only gives a truncated bit of the message.
What was surprising (ok, not really), but the spam messages that mentioned rape as their drawcard, usually mentioned it more than once. Only 2 of the 30 mentioned it once (assuming that in the full message they didn’t mention it more). The ‘winner’ of the truncated spams was a mention of rape NINE TIMES in the three-line extract.
So, the Number 1 draw of porn is… rape. (No shit sherlock.) So for all the pro-porn activists out there, this (rape) is what most porn users want to see, at least as defined by the promoters. Get your ostrich head out of the sand.
The rape category also included: gangrape (4), drugrape/drugging (4), gayrape (2) and malerape (1). Female rape, was of course, the default. It was also inferred in 30 of the spam.
The teen/child category included: teen (13), pre-teen (12), with baby, teenboy, child and gayteens all scoring (1) each. Yep, that’s right BABY porn was in there too. Again I mention that the default for teens and pre-teens was female, the mentions of boy and gay were exceptions.
Racial. The most popular mention was Asian, but also Japanese and Indian, and one or two referrals to Muslim. The default was female.
Violence and torture were put in together, although frequently these were mentioned in conjunction with rape. *nice*
Free, well it was lots of free everything. Just equals entitlement under patriarchy.
I’ve lumped gay/lesbian/trans etc in together, even though ‘lesbian’ (and ‘bisexual’) in this context is NOT the same—as it is lesbian for the male gaze/pleasure. The breakdown was: gay (8), lesbian (4), bisexual (2), transgender (1).
Hentai, Anime, and cartoons were also lumped in together.
‘Grannies’ and incest have about the same amount of popularity. ‘Grannies’ being the category of (male) sex with an older woman, sometimes directly referred to as grannies, sometimes indirectly. The incest category (although an exception) did refer to one ‘father/son’. Sick fucks all around.
Most of the remaining categories are more or less sexual acts (dp = double penetration), with the exception of ’snuff’ (4). Snuff is of course where the pornfilm makers murder a performer in real life, for sexual gratification of the (male) viewer.
The last category was virgin. Only ONE mention. However, I guess it is indirectly covered with all the teen and pre-teen and baby crap going on in the previous categories. It was a surprise that it wasn’t mentioned more, but perhaps pornland has adopted a kind of shorthand or interchangeability with these terms.
So in summary, these are the ‘high points’ of porn, these are things that punters want to see in their porn, these are the *good bits*. I saw no mention of ‘mutually satisfying consensual sex’, etc. Actually, the opposite. It was all about rape. It was all about domination (either of sex, race or age). It was all about force and violence. It was all ‘take’.
This is what porn is all about. How much more obvious could it be? Wake up—and smell the patriarchy in your porn.




Tuesday, 26 December 2006 at 17:49
Your pie charts and bar graph are a really effective way of having all of this hit home. Thanks for turning your disgusting spam into a really effective lesson. I’m going to bookmark this post so I can send people to it.
Tuesday, 26 December 2006 at 18:12
I saw a “pro-porn” feminist defend violent/rape porn by using a scene from a horror movie as a way to show how people are enterained by violence, so no one can really complain about violent/rape porn.
The obvious problem with this is that people watching a horror movie KNOW FOR CERTAIN that it is just acting. We know for a fact that these people are actors, and no actually being mutilated or murdered. Therefore it is the fear people enjoy experiencing - NOT the violence.
With violent/rape porn there is no such guaranty that you’re watching fiction. There is no proof that you’re not watching an actual rape. I can accept that there are people who, since they enjoy your average action or horror flick, simply want to see hardcore sex in a movie and so look for porn that has those elements. However, modern porn is increasingly gonzo, it there fore lacks any discernable plot to make that defense feasible. It’s pretty clear then that the draw with violent/rape porn is the hope that you are watching an actual rape.
The two don’t compare.
I don’t think that this is what all porn is about. I’m sure there are “women-friendly” porn movies out there. I’m sure there’s some that teach someone how to please a woman instead of just use her to masterbate with. I’m sure there exists some that isn’t all about hurting women.
But the overwhelming majority is like that and it is indefensible.
Tuesday, 26 December 2006 at 19:06
Whilst there is a ‘little’ distinction in horror films, as you say because it is clearly make-believe, the violence towards women is highly sexualised in horror flicks, and rarely sexualised when directed at the men (in horror flicks). Most of the time, the female victim is in her underwear (or little clothing). Plus the screams are of a ’simulated rape’ variety. (BTW, when I am in a life or death situation, and I actually have been in quite a few, the last thing I would do is scream, I have never screamed. At seeing a spider unexpectedly perhaps, but never in life or death situations)
As for porn, the most popular porn today contains violence (usually rape or ’simulated’ rape), and it is obvious what the (majority male) punters are after - which is the wank element plus added bonus of re-enforcing the ’superiority’ element.
Good luck with the quest for ‘woman-friendly’ porn. Needle, Haystack, come to mind. I think it is difficult for true egalitarian erotica to exist in such a female-objectified, pornified, climate.
It is a fact that the MAJORITY of porn out there is either violent or degrading, primarily to women (but also very racist). I therefore have a major problem with those who defend porn.
The main purpose of this post, apart from the stormy-chart-fetish, was to illustrate the drawcard of porn - what were the popular themes of porn. It is important not to look at porn as the ‘depiction of sex’, but why it is popular, and for whom.
Tuesday, 26 December 2006 at 19:54
Stormy your pie chart did not surprise or horrify me in the least. Rather it confirms what I know already - rape is not rape when it is porn! But of course that is a blatant lie as is all porn. As regards any porn which shows egaliterian consensual sexual activity which does not focus on that sacred sexual act, penetration and male orgasm - well it doesn’t exist in porn.
In reality porn is simultaneously woman-hating, violent, racist and the more cruel and callous it is the better the johns like it. Says a lot for the male buyers - of which most of this porn is aimed at. As regards the section on young under-age females, well that is all part of the porn industry too it is not a separate issue. Johns become increasingly bored looking at so-called over 18’s and so they want more excitement hence under-age girls and even babies - why not that’s what females are, they are just dustbins or depositories for that other sacred emission - masses of semen!!
Wednesday, 27 December 2006 at 12:34
I didn’t say I was looking for women-friendly porn; I said it probably exists somewhere.
Neither do I think porn=sex. It’s clear in this post, given what the advertizers feel draws perverts in, that sex is about the last thing porn is about.
Wednesday, 27 December 2006 at 15:53
VeraV, I wasn’t criticising you - just stating/clarifying the general points for other readers.
I didn’t think that you were really on a woman-friendly porn seeking mission!
I’m a bit out of it still, recovering from the bad cold, have posted lots of things that have been taken the wrong way. I really should have put the fingers into mittens this week. tisk tisk stormy!
Wednesday, 27 December 2006 at 17:03
Thank goodness. I thought I’d suddenly wandred in to Pro-Porn Denialville.
I was thinking about this though - is it possible that you receive so much rape porn spam because your site deals with the subject of rape often? I know almost nothing about spamulating technologies - but I know I’ve heard about content specific spam.
I wonder if we’d get different results if a blog dealt with sex rather than rape/abuse/sexual assault.
Wednesday, 27 December 2006 at 18:27
Oh VeraV, we can’t have you wandering off to pro-porn Denialville - that would never do!
I too had thought that perhaps my blog was targeted as content-specific. Thinking more about it, I also thought that the purpose of the content-specific spam on blogs was to raise the ratings in the search engines (of the porn sites).
The peak of spam was definitely xmas day, as I have only had 33 over the last two days, so xmas day was double to what I am getting now.
But Akismet does quite a good job of filtering out most of them. I assume that most of its success lies in the detection of same-post posted either in rapid succession or simultaneously (as some of the email filters work).
Yesterday I put a block on the two IPs where most were coming from, but unfortunately, it has blocked my HAM ! One of my Hammies was most upset (not really, but it makes good copy!). Actually, my Hammies should not have been blocked, or at least routinely unblocked after the error (de-marking) was corrected - as these comments (along with my own) seemed to come from the same IP (which I know is incorrect).
So apologies to all my loyal Hammies that got caught up in the filter over the last day or so. I have now removed the block, and posting life should return to normal.
Wednesday, 27 December 2006 at 18:34
Hi Spottedele
(your comment was one of the Hammies that ended up with the Spammies - sorry!)
I’m glad you like my charts (as much as I like making them YAY). The bar chart certainly illustrates (and I’m more of a visual person), the main attractions to porn sites.
Wednesday, 27 December 2006 at 19:53
Hey! this is very good yunno!
Not the spam the analysis of course
Wednesday, 27 December 2006 at 20:16
Sparkle, how much is Akismet picking up on your blog?
(as your blog is far more popular)
Wednesday, 27 December 2006 at 21:09
I get approx 20-40 per day for porn including a couple of casino and viagra spams (usually averaging the 30 mark) Today some has snuk past the radar for some reason - used panties oh yum great!
Wednesday, 27 December 2006 at 21:22
Omg, I’m getting so much porn spam lately too. If I can face looking at it in any detail I may do some similar calculations.
Thanks for the post - I’ve never read anything on this subject like this before.
Wednesday, 27 December 2006 at 21:30
Hi Hippie.
It seems to be a xmas special, as there have ‘only’ been around 35-40 for the last two days, so half the volume of xmas day. I think all have been of similar pornie ilk. I’ve been meaning to put up the ’source’ data, but I only want to do it as pictures rather than text (so I don’t get picked up by the search engines).
Hi Sparkle.
I thought you would get more (being a more widely read blog).
Perhaps we should compare spam at some stage, to identify if we are getting most of the same (sources).
Thursday, 28 December 2006 at 0:02
I’ll keep a check from tonight if that’s any help?
Thursday, 28 December 2006 at 11:10
Perhaps over the weekend Sparkle?
Today I’ve just been hit with about 15 Tarot spams, but there were a goodly 8 or more pornies in there.
They (the spammers) really are a waste of space. Don’t they know Akismet sees the uselessness and corrals it away? So what on earth is their point - to be the most useless and annoying gits on the planet? Fucking idiots.
Thursday, 28 December 2006 at 13:09
[...] By A Stormy Blog, here. Stormy writes: …as a marketing type person, and a radfem, I thought I’d do a quick analysis of the content of pornie-spam. Looking at this spam (or anything promoted) through advertising eyes almost always reveals what the advertiser (or supplier) thinks of as the ‘best bits’ of his/her product. As porn is the product being promoted, what do these advertisers think of as the ‘best bits’? … [...]
Thursday, 28 December 2006 at 22:06
Just where are you surfing that you get this kind of spam? This kind of thing is not always random.
Friday, 29 December 2006 at 0:51
When a man looks for rape porn, he is wanting to watch a woman being raped. Even if the woman isn’t being raped, this is feeding his fantasy of a woman being raped.
I get loads of spam too but I avoid looking at it
Friday, 29 December 2006 at 10:52
Cyclophile, it is nothing to do with ’surfing’.
Having a blog just attracts spammers (and trolls too).
Charlie, yes, agreed. IMO, it doesn’t matter if it is ‘fake’ or not, it is very unhealthy (esp for women).
Friday, 5 January 2007 at 0:00
i found ’spreadable spam’ as i was clearing out my mum’s cupboards. it was quite old…
Monday, 8 January 2007 at 4:01
This was a total rad analysis Stormy. I have had to change computers and had a very hard time figuring how to register cookies etc… in my last computer to actually respond to your posts.
I have been reading here often though - just so you know.