Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Is Salacious Content Driving E-Book Sales?

timothy posted more than 5 years ago | from the let-me-take-one-lust-driven-guess dept.

Books 215

narramissic writes "Having already abandoned ebooks once, Barnes & Noble is jumping back into ebooks with the purchase this week of ebook seller Fictionwise. Why is the format suddenly hot? Look no further than the top 10 Fictionwise bestsellers, says blogger Peter Smith. Once again it seems like 'porn is blazing a path to a new media format. Of the top 10 bestsellers under the 'Multiformat' category, nine are tagged 'erotica' and the last is 'dark fantasy.' Need more proof that folks (let's take a leap and call them women) who read 'bodice rippers' like the privacy of ebooks? Author Samantha Lucas (who writes for publishers like Cobblestone Press and Siren Publishing) tells Smith that she sells almost all of her novels in ebook format."

cancel ×

215 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Of course the main reason is (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27098099)

that it only takes one hand to use a mouse?

Re:Of course the main reason is (5, Funny)

Ethanol-fueled (1125189) | more than 5 years ago | (#27098447)

And that it's much easier to wipe off a kindle. Ever cleaned a keyboard?

Re:Of course the main reason is (-1, Offtopic)

Philip K Dickhead (906971) | more than 5 years ago | (#27099471)

Aaahh Freak out!
Le Freak, C'est Chic
Freak out!
Aaahh Freak out!
Le Freak, C'est Chic
Freak out!
Aaahh Freak out!
Le Freak, C'est Chic
Freak out!
Aaahh Freak out!
Le Freak, C'est Chic
Freak out!

Have you heard about the new dance craze?
Listen to us, I'm sure you'll be amazed
Big fun to be had by everyone
It's up to you, It surely can be done
Young and old are doing it, I'm told
Just one try, and you too will be sold
It's called Le Freak! They're doing it night and day
Allow us, we'll show you the way

(chorus)

All that pressure got you down
Has your head spinning all around
Feel the rhythm, check the ride
Come on along and have a real good time
Like the days of stopping at the Savoy
Now we freak, oh what a joy
Just come on down, two fifty four
Find a spot out on the floor

(chorus)

Now Freak!
I said Freak!
Now Freak!

All that pressure got you down
Has your head spinning all around
Feel the rhythm, check the ride
Come on along and have a real good time
Like the days of stopping at the Savoy
Now we freak, oh what a joy
Just come on down, two fifty four
Find a spot out on the floor

(chorus)

pr0n (3, Funny)

XaviorPenguin (789745) | more than 5 years ago | (#27098237)

The e-book is for porn!

alt.stories.erotica (4, Interesting)

Hatta (162192) | more than 5 years ago | (#27098259)

I used to read alt.stories.erotica way back in the 9600 baud days. The only thing new here is that people are paying for it.

Re:alt.stories.erotica (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27098695)

(http://asstr.org) (NSFW) and (http://assm.asstr.org/assm) (NSFW) Posting anonymously for obvious reasons.

Re:alt.stories.erotica (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27099037)

http://storiesonline.net/ [storiesonline.net] (Free registration required, but I've never received spam on the throwaway email address I generated 5 years ago or so. There are some *really* good novels to be found, check out Al Steiner under Authors for example. And if you're into heavy fun, check out Samantha K.)
http://literotica.com/ [literotica.com]

Re:alt.stories.erotica (5, Funny)

Chris Burke (6130) | more than 5 years ago | (#27099113)

I used to read alt.stories.erotica way back in the 9600 baud days. The only thing new here is that people are paying for it.

I read erotic stories augmented with 16-color ANSI art from a BBS over a 2400 baud modem. /waits for someone to come in and talk about how they used to write their mainframe code so that it made dirty pictures on the punch cards, or how if they squinted their eyes at ENIAC the vacuum tubes looked kinda like boobs.

Re:alt.stories.erotica (3, Funny)

Em Emalb (452530) | more than 5 years ago | (#27099265)

Back in my day, we had to IMAGINE our porn.

And we liked it.

Dang kids with your fancy electricity and your indoor plumbing.

Re:alt.stories.erotica (4, Interesting)

againjj (1132651) | more than 5 years ago | (#27099435)

My father taught FORTRAN in the 80's, and one of his assignments was to write a program that printed a (text) calender for any given year, bonus points for extra features. One student turned in a program that printed an ASCII graphic for each month -- they were to be looked at sideways on the old 132 character wide fanfold paper -- and the pictures were high-quality center-fold style girls. The student got his bonus points.

Hey, not just women (1, Interesting)

Toonol (1057698) | more than 5 years ago | (#27098281)

Men read erotica, too!

Of course, it's Ghost in the Shell meets X-Files fanfic, but still, erotic.

Re:Hey, not just women (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27098327)

Men read erotica, too! Of course, it's Ghost in the Shell meets X-Files fanfic, but still, erotic.

"Legolas & Elrond Soil the Shire" doesn't count!

Re:Hey, not just women (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27098613)

It was a blustery fall afternoon at Hogwarts and Hermione Granger sat in the Gryffindor common with only a crackling fire to keep her company. Upon hearing footsteps coming from the boys' tower she quickly glanced up from her copy of Zublin's Advanced Potions, hoping to find Harry or Ron.

"â(TM)Afternoon Hermione!" Neville Longbottom said, nearly tripping on the last few steps of the spiral staircase.

"Oh, hello Neville" Hermione snapped. "You haven't seen Harry or Ron up there have you? I've been looking for them all day!"

"Yeah, they've been huddled up in Ron's bed with the curtains drawn for hours!" Neville said, dumbfounded "I tried to peak in once to see what they were doing, but they shouted something about not wrecking their secret light sensitive spells. I didn't want to be a bother, so I came back down here."

"Light sensitive spells?" Hermione said to herself, "Those boys could never master such advanced magic. Something fishy is going on here!"

She quickly pulled out her charms textbook and began to rapidly search the index. The combination of heat from the fireplace and intensity of study soon created a seductive glow around Hermione's young face. Soon, the perspiration spread through her underarms, neck and chest, highlighting key areas of her uniform.

"You're looking... hot" Neville murmured from the oversized armchair next to Hermione.

"Yeah, I probably shouldn't be sitting so close to this fire" She said.

Hermione stuffed her papers into her bag and walked over to the couch across from Neville.

"Oh no" He replied, moving to the empty seat next to Hermione. "I didn't mean temperature"

"Um, thanks" She gushed, "I've been using a new lotion. I think it really brings out the summers mist in my skin, don't you?"

"I don't know," He said, looking into her eyes "I've never tasted a summers mist before"

Neville quickly leaned in and kissed her on the lips. Hermione did not protest, and had soon undone the top three buttons of her blouse.

Neville slowly pulled out his wand and said âoeDisplayus mammarium!"

The remainder of Hermione's shirt suddenly split open, exposing her young chest to the fall air. Neville smiled with delight and quickly pressed his face against her bare skin. Hermione felt waves of ecstasy as Neville slowly and carefully licked both of her protruding nipples.

âoeI feel like a Hungarian Horntailâ Neville whispered into Hermioneâ(TM)s ear âoeAnd I need to find a cave to...â

âoeHermione! Neville!â Ron interrupted from the top of the stairs. âoeWhat are you two doing? Oh bugger, weâ(TM)ll have to get new furniture!â

âoeYou would say that, you old faggot!â Hermione laughed.

She writhed with pleasure on an old persian rug while Neville carefully pulled down her white cotton panties. Ron stared, open mouthed.

âoeI⦠but⦠how did you know?â Ron sputtered

âoeLetâ(TM)s just say itâ(TM)s clear to all of us that you two are doing more than talking during those 45 minute âbathroom breaksâ(TM) at lunchâ Neville said, wiping Hermioneâ(TM)s residue from the side of his mouth.

âoeBloody hell, does this mean Harry and I are a couple?â Ron said, slinking into an empty chair near the fire.

âoeOne thingâ(TM)s for sureâ Hermione replied, âoeYouâ(TM)re a couple of huffle puffs!â

Re:Hey, not just women (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27098375)

Men read erotica, too! Of course, it's Ghost in the Shell meets X-Files fanfic, but still, erotic.

Men do. They just mention women together with increasing sales because of one plain fact that everyone seems to want to deny. I'm about to be politically incorrect but oh well, none of this was decided by me, I just call it like I see it. Women as a whole are net consumers, while men as a whole are net producers. The "glass ceiling" exists only because women as a whole take more time off of work than men and work fewer hours than men as a whole. That creates a perception that may be unfair to those women who don't care to have children and are willing to work as hard and as long as men, but those are comparatively rare and by and large the stereotype is true. Women are specifically mentioned here because consumers are what Amazon wants to reach.

Dear Moderators (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27098633)

Please moderators, don't be so trigger-happy. When I wrote that post, it was about as inoffensive and non-inflammatory as I knew how to write it. It's what I believe and I know that a lot of people won't like it, so I tried hard to take a neutral tone and I tried to make it as non-Flamebait as I could. If I wanted to piss people off or offend them, I could have done that significantly more than I did. Modding that down because you don't like what I say is akin to censorship and it's not useful to anyone. If you want to do something useful and constructive, then tell me why you think I have that wrong. Do it openly for everyone to see. That way, if you are right and I am wrong, everyone will see it and anyone who feels inclined to think of the situation the way I do will have a new point of view to consider.

I hope I've explained why just getting mad and modding it down is probably the worst action you could take. That makes sense for a GNAA troll or something like that but not for what I said. If you really think I am being unreasonable, showing me that you can also be unreasonable is not going to help. I can be reasoned with and I want to hear how you feel.

Re:Dear Moderators (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27098867)

Flamebait is flamebait, regardless of whether or not it is actually what you believe. What matters is what everyone else believes. Even if you were right, it would still be flamebait. That you posted anonymously just adds fuel for those who wish to flame you.

Next time, try to find support for your beliefs. (Non-flamebait posts have evidence if they disagree with the majority.) Maybe, when you don't find any support, you can post something else.

Also remember that talking about moderation is always off topic.

Re:Dear Moderators (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27099193)

I'm sorry, but what a narrow-minded post.

Flamebait is flamebait, regardless of whether or not it is actually what you believe. What matters is what everyone else believes. Even if you were right, it would still be flamebait. That you posted anonymously just adds fuel for those who wish to flame you.

Next time, try to find support for your beliefs. (Non-flamebait posts have evidence if they disagree with the majority.) Maybe, when you don't find any support, you can post something else.


No, when it's what you actually believe it's discussion. When you post it for the sole purpose of pissing off or offending other people with no regard for whether you actually believe it or not, it's Flamebait. For example, I would not be the least bit surprised if most of the racist jokes I see on here are from people who are not actually racist but enjoy the strong reactions most others have to such highly offensive jokes.

I posted anonymously precisely because of responses like yours, to be very honest with you. You are capable of open acceptance, even of things you dislike or don't understand, but I am not getting that from you at all. Instead I am getting somebody pontificating to me about how I should express myself, as though that were for you to determine. Somebody who, I might add, complains that I posted anonymously while doing the same thing himself.

Also, I refuse to take on any additional burden of proof that someone who conforms to the majority would not be expected to deal with. That's because every human being is equal and popularity does not determine truth, so I reject the notion that some extra standard should apply to me because of the content of what I believe. One more thing, I don't need to "find any support" because I did what I set out to do, which was to express how I felt and to respect that other people are free to love it or hate it as they see fit. I would defend your right to do the same, in fact. It is only that you presume to tell me how I should express myself and what I should say and don't seem to see anything wrong with your actions that I object to, and rightfully so.

Also remember that talking about moderation is always off topic.

Just as soon as there is another way other than follow-up posts to critique the moderators, I'll use it. In the meanwhile, I accept that valuable discussion can occur where you least expect it, including those posts that you might be quick to dismiss. Therefore I think it's best to evaluate each on a case-by-case basis, which is after all why we have human moderators who are expected to use their judgment.

Re:Dear Moderators (1, Flamebait)

Dishevel (1105119) | more than 5 years ago | (#27099269)

I don't actually think that if the majority of people thought about it they would disagree with the content of his post.

No one thinks women should be discriminated against but I do think that as a group that working women take more hours off than working men. Period.

So that means they work less hours. Less on the production side. Also as a group women make more of the buying decisions in a family than the men do. More on the consuming side.

Sounds like the post is just factually true.

Re:Dear Moderators (3, Insightful)

nickspoon (1070240) | more than 5 years ago | (#27099447)

Sounds like the post is just factually true.

Except that what it is implying is that the 'glass ceiling' is imaginary, that gender-based discrimination does not exist. Even in our 'enlightened' society, where the role of women has been significantly balanced, it remains ignorant to say that women only get worse pay because they do not work such long hours. In addition, the number of women who do work long hours and do not spend excessive time on childcare is certainly not insignificant, nor (as parent^4 seems to think) worth dismissing.

Also, it seems to me that women are mentioned here purely for comic effect, not because Amazon sees them as more apt to consume.

Re:Dear Moderators (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27099315)

You should not have been modded down, but neither should you have been modded up in the first place. Women as net consumers? Because they bear children?

Of all the things to criticize about women, you chose the fact that they bear children? That is the most fucking important job in our society, pun intended. You should rethink your priorities, man.

Re:Dear Moderators (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27099503)

You should not have been modded down, but neither should you have been modded up in the first place. Women as net consumers? Because they bear children? Of all the things to criticize about women, you chose the fact that they bear children? That is the most fucking important job in our society, pun intended. You should rethink your priorities, man.

Why so angry? A corporation does not care WHY they are net consumers. It could be a good reason like the one you cite, or it could be a horrible reason, it makes no difference to e-book sales figures. "Net consumers" isn't an insult, or at least it was not intended to be. The differences between the sexes create business realities that successful businesses understand because they know their market and try to give their customers what they want. If I said that most porno sites that offer pictures and videos cater to men, would you get upset? No? Then what's wrong with what I said about women?

Other industries do this too. The real estate market and increasingly the automobile dealers are also beginning to cater to women because women are increasingly making the buying decisions for those two things. They don't do it because "women bear children" or because they are sexist, they do it because it results in better sales. I really think your venom is misplaced.

Re:Dear Moderators (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27099693)

That creates a perception that may be unfair to those women who don't care to have children and are willing to work as hard and as long as men, but those are comparatively rare and by and large the stereotype is true.

Its not so much that this line is sexist, but rather that is just plain wrong. Raising children is the most important task of society. Maybe you could go with something like "women suck at raising kids." At least that might be a valid point. What you've said here is just totally nuts: it sounds like you are saying that having kids is somehow doing something irrelevant and unimportant.

I mean, really this line is completely off-topic. The first line of your OP is on topic, and the rest is off-topic, slightly sexist, but most importantly, irrational. Women aren't net consumers any more than your liver is a net consumer.

Re:Dear Moderators (1)

osymandias (1430009) | more than 5 years ago | (#27099381)

Avoiding inflammatory language and couching what you say in veils isn't being non-inflammatory. Writing everything in a reasonable fashion doesn't mean you're being reasonable, it just means you're trying to give the impression of reason whilst getting away with posting the same tired old nonsense. The glass ceiling is not a product of women working less. I don't deny that there may be women who want to work less, just as there may well be men who feel the same. That doesn't explain how comparing across people in the same positions, doing the same jobs with the same hours, we still find a massive inequality in pay rates (an average of 17%, in the UK at least).

Re:Dear Moderators (2, Insightful)

NeutronCowboy (896098) | more than 5 years ago | (#27099479)

You got modded flame-bait because... well, you WERE flame-bait. The only time that women take off more than men is when they give birth. Other than that, they work at least the exact same hours. I say at least, because there's a lot of perception that women just aren't as good as men.... and to disprove that convincingly requires overtime.

Here's what I would suggest: talk to top-flight women. Women who are Director level and above. See what they say about their working hours, and how much time they take off for children. You'll find that a lot actually don't have children for precisely the reason that it would hamper their career.

Re:Hey, not just women (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27099145)

Wow, how the hell did this bullshit post get modded up? Even if this misogynistic flamebait were true, it'd STILL be irellevent to both the story and the thread it's replying to. The Kindle is targeted at book reading audiences, whether they're male OR female.

This thread's OP is about whether men or women read erotic stories more. Generally this is true, women read erotic stories more, and men look at erotic pictures/videos more.

This has nothing whatsoever to do with some women-haters view that women sit at home suckling babies and big strong men produce all of the world's goods.

Re:Hey, not just women (1)

davester666 (731373) | more than 5 years ago | (#27098381)

They just prefer that the book has more color pictures...

Re:Hey, not just women (1)

Registered Coward v2 (447531) | more than 5 years ago | (#27098817)

Men read erotica, too!

Yea, that's the ticket. They don't just look at the pictures.

Re:Hey, not just women (1)

thetoadwarrior (1268702) | more than 5 years ago | (#27099361)

Only if it's a picture book.

One-handed reading with the Kindle (5, Funny)

The Fun Guy (21791) | more than 5 years ago | (#27098287)

The ability to turn pages one-handed is touted as one of the big improvements of the Kindle 2.

Draw your own conclusions.

Re:One-handed reading with the Kindle (5, Funny)

Em Emalb (452530) | more than 5 years ago | (#27098317)

Cowboy Neal has a Kindle.

Go ahead and erase THAT mental image.

Technology really does change things! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27098299)

This is the first time in history that salacious content has driven book sales.

Plus screens are much less absorbant and can be wiped clean.

Smut is as old as pictographs (1)

Jabbrwokk (1015725) | more than 5 years ago | (#27099139)

This is the first time in history that salacious content has driven book sales.

No, it isn't. [wikipedia.org] And again, no. [tantra.us]

And for the record, dammit, I guess I need to re-think my novel... AGAIN. Good-bye, black-humour social satire, hello throbbing shafts of love and steamy windows of desire.

Porn Buyer's Capital (1)

daveywest (937112) | more than 5 years ago | (#27098329)

Re:Porn Buyer's Capital (1)

dangitman (862676) | more than 5 years ago | (#27099149)

Clearly, it means that the "gold tablets" that God gave to Joseph Smith were actually the world's first eBook readers. And God owns shares in Amazon.

Oblig. Star Wars ref (1)

PK Tech Guy (1310715) | more than 5 years ago | (#27098339)

Salacious Crumb is driving Star Wars E-Book sales.

Sort of (1)

Zerth (26112) | more than 5 years ago | (#27098395)

My wife doesn't read bodice-rippers, but most of the sci-fi/fantasy books she reads has a strong romantic or relationship component. IE Vorkosigan Saga, Wizard's Rule series, etc.

It might just be because she just got hers, but she has been spending a lot more time reading lately. Bought a fair chunk, then raided a hundred or two books from my e-library.

Re:Sort of (1)

Em Emalb (452530) | more than 5 years ago | (#27098491)

"Your wife". RIIIIGHT.

Get back in the cage, Erotica-boy!

(kidding, kidding.)

Somewhat off-topic (3, Informative)

causality (777677) | more than 5 years ago | (#27098697)

My wife doesn't read bodice-rippers, but most of the sci-fi/fantasy books she reads has a strong romantic or relationship component. IE Vorkosigan Saga, Wizard's Rule series, etc.

If she likes the Wizard's Rule series by Goodkind, I think she'll really enjoy the Wheel of Time series by Robert Jordan. If she likes dark fiction with a strong tragic-hero element, I think she'll also enjoy the Eternal Champion series by Michael Moorcock, particularly the Elric books.

Re:Somewhat off-topic (1)

ericrost (1049312) | more than 5 years ago | (#27099355)

Ah good pointer, avoid the Wizard's Rule series since Wheel of Time is the worst wannabe Tolkien (who's writing I love) dreck I've ever read.

The internet is for porn... (1)

wjh31 (1372867) | more than 5 years ago | (#27098403)

as always

Re:The internet is for porn... (1)

causality (777677) | more than 5 years ago | (#27098889)

Warning: NSFW.

Have you seen this video before? It's called The Internet Is For Porn [google.com] and It's hilarious.

Nothing New (3, Interesting)

KermodeBear (738243) | more than 5 years ago | (#27098407)

Pornography has always been at the forefront of technology. VHS, DVD, they were the first to really start using DRM on video content, too. A quick search on Google for 'porn technology' will give you lots of articles on the subject.

Re:Nothing New (4, Funny)

Registered Coward v2 (447531) | more than 5 years ago | (#27098865)

Pornography has always been at the forefront of technology. VHS, DVD, they were the first to really start using DRM on video content, too. A quick search on Google for 'porn technology' will give you lots of articles on the subject.

Shoot, go back to the dawn of the printing press, sculpture, painting etc. All modern times has done is change the delivery format.

I'd bet that Ogg and Thagg, after drawing the latest hunt on the cave walls then did a little drawing about Oggette and her friends. And then started the flame war over obsidian vs flint for spear points.

Some things never change...

Re:Nothing New (1)

Thag (8436) | more than 5 years ago | (#27099199)

That is pure unfounded supposition on your part. :)

Re:Nothing New (5, Funny)

baKanale (830108) | more than 5 years ago | (#27099243)

Obsidian is better. Anyone using flint is an idiot.

Re:Nothing New (3, Funny)

Chris Burke (6130) | more than 5 years ago | (#27099535)

And then started the flame war over obsidian vs flint for spear points.

Some things never change...

Well, except that modern flame wars don't often end with one side stabbing the other in order to prove their point.

Re:Nothing New (5, Insightful)

Thag (8436) | more than 5 years ago | (#27099229)

That's because porn doesn't have to be good in order to sell. It will sell on novelty alone, at least for a little while. So it is an ideal early adopter for new media.

Erotica? Dark Fantasy? (1)

grassy_knoll (412409) | more than 5 years ago | (#27098415)

Why don't they just say "vampire"?

[badum-ching]

Re:Erotica? Dark Fantasy? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27099335)

Because vampire fiction is all homoerotic, bodice-rippers are hetero.

privacy of ebooks? (2, Insightful)

NotQuiteReal (608241) | more than 5 years ago | (#27098417)

Seems like buying books for cash is more anonymous than leaving an e-commerce trail.

I supposed it depends on how big a town you live in.

Re:privacy of ebooks? (4, Insightful)

fuzzyfuzzyfungus (1223518) | more than 5 years ago | (#27098855)

Rationally considered, you are correct. However, human social instincts are not rational consideration. A big faceless corporation knowing that you purchased a porno is, viscerally, way less intimidating than having a clerk who won't remember you tomorrow raise an eyebrow slightly.

Re:privacy of ebooks? (1)

CopaceticOpus (965603) | more than 5 years ago | (#27098877)

It's not the privacy of one's buying history that is at issue. It's the privacy of a mom not sharing with the other parents just what she's reading while attending her daughter's soccer games.

The other mothers won't go stealing her credit card receipts from her mailbox, nor will they hack into her Amazon account. But they will try to catch a glimpse of a smutty book cover.

At least, that's the idea behind this article. I doubt that it is all that common of a concern.

Re:privacy of ebooks? (1)

Nyeerrmm (940927) | more than 5 years ago | (#27099151)

Different kind of privacy. Some things, like health conditions, SSNs and credit card numbers, you don't want the government, corporations, insurance companies or identity thieves to be able to mine out of large databases or find in a deep background check. Other things, like your affinity for bodice-ripping novels or the fact that you secretly love the latest Britney Spears or Backstreet Boys (are they still around?) CD are things you just don't want to advertise as you're sitting on the bus or waiting in line.

Personally, I just prefer the convenience of e-books. While I do like that you can read one-handed, its because the single thing I hate most about real books is trying to hold them open while you're eating and reading at the same time.

Re:privacy of ebooks? (1)

dave562 (969951) | more than 5 years ago | (#27099533)

I was wondering what they meant about privacy too. What I came up with is that they are talking about privacy in terms of not holding a physical book. A person could be reading ANYTHING on a Kindle and the Kindle looks the same. However if a woman is reading some trashy romance novel, it will have the picture of Fabio on the cover.

I could be wrong, but I think that is the privacy context that the OP was referencing.

Keyword search (-1, Flamebait)

unlametheweak (1102159) | more than 5 years ago | (#27098449)

Yet something else for the Internet Watch Foundation to keep an eye on. There needs to be a repository where people can freely read the ebooks (or at least search for keywords) so that indecent or potentially illegal material can be found and blocked before these materials can be purchased or downloaded. Deep packet inspection may be necessary in the transmission of these materials across boarders.

Re:Keyword search (1)

causality (777677) | more than 5 years ago | (#27098829)

Yet something else for the Internet Watch Foundation to keep an eye on. There needs to be a repository where people can freely read the ebooks (or at least search for keywords) so that indecent or potentially illegal material can be found and blocked before these materials can be purchased or downloaded. Deep packet inspection may be necessary in the transmission of these materials across boarders.

I hope this is satire.

If not, I say to you that if you want to engage in censorship you will always be able to find some noble-sounding "for the children" type of excuse for doing so and lots of misguided people with good intentions and no understanding of the Law of Unintended Consequences will happily and fervently join you in this cause. That doesn't make it right, however.

Again I hope this was satire. If it isn't, and if you fully understand my paragraph above and comprehend the incredible amount of damage that naive but well-intentioned people can do and still think that you have some kind of "holy cause" that overrides these concerns, I invite you to tell me why, for I believe that the weakness of that position is easy to reveal. If it was satire, then I think you already revealed how shallow this mentality is :-).

I just ask my daughter (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27098461)

No kidding, my daughter is 20 and she reads tremendous quantity's of male-male porn. We were talking about her "book collection" about a month ago and she told me that she now gets the stories off the internet.
Rather obviously, I am posting this as AC.

Re:I just ask my daughter (2, Funny)

bluefoxlucid (723572) | more than 5 years ago | (#27098537)

Why are you aware your daughter reads male on male porn? Like, why are you not totally rejecting this and not talking to her about her porn habits? This seems to be the sane way to handle things.

Re:I just ask my daughter (1)

Hatta (162192) | more than 5 years ago | (#27098665)

Why is an open discussion about pornography a bad thing? They're both adults, they should be able to handle it maturely. Someone so seemingly paranoid about merely discussing pornography shouldn't lecture people on the "sane" way to handle things.

Re:I just ask my daughter (1)

Chris Burke (6130) | more than 5 years ago | (#27098689)

Well for the latter, because she's 20. She's an adult. She quite possibly has done more than have naughty thoughts while reading a story. What's he going to do, wag his finger at her and tell her to stop reading dirty stories? Would that have worked on you when you were in college?

For the former, the least creepy thing I can think of is actually that she simply has so much porn that it's impossible to ignore, like a whole bookshelf where every title is obviously erotic in nature, and stacks of them on her desk or something.

Re:I just ask my daughter (4, Insightful)

Daniel Dvorkin (106857) | more than 5 years ago | (#27098791)

Like, why are you not totally rejecting this and not talking to her about her porn habits?

Maybe ... because she's twenty years old? As in, old enough (by a couple of years) to vote, get married, buy a house, or get pieces of herself blown off in Iraq -- but apparently not old enough to read about guys getting it on, at least in your book.

Or maybe he feels that his daughter is an independent, thinking human being and he doesn't get to tell her what to read.

Of course, maybe it's that she's twenty years old.

Possibly it's because he doesn't have the same visceral reaction to guy-guy porn that you do. Something tells me that if OP had mentioned that he had a son (particularly a grown son) who's into girl-girl porn, you wouldn't have a problem with it.

Also, did I mention that she's twenty years old?

Someone needs some serious help here, and you know, it's not OP or his daughter.

Re:I just ask my daughter (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27099233)

whooosh

Re:I just ask my daughter (2, Insightful)

Areyoukiddingme (1289470) | more than 5 years ago | (#27099255)

I'm wondering why the people who responded to you assumed that the Anonymous Coward was male. Wanna bet she was talking about her daughter? Mothers and daughters discuss subjects that males, especially males related to each other, practically never discuss, unless roaring drunk.

But aside from that, I think all of your respondents deserve a big *woooosh*. That sounded like sarcasm to me.

Amazon does not bear this out (1)

ucblockhead (63650) | more than 5 years ago | (#27098467)

Sales for the Kindle do not seem to bear this out: Kindle bestsellers [amazon.com] . I see no porn in the top 25.

Re:Amazon does not bear this out (1)

Hatta (162192) | more than 5 years ago | (#27098941)

The relative frequency of any specific title has little to do with the relative frequency of groups of titles.

Re:Amazon does not bear this out (2, Insightful)

Dynedain (141758) | more than 5 years ago | (#27099117)

And the New York Times intentionally leaves genres off its best-seller list, otherwise LOTR, the Bible, and various sci-fi novels would routinely top the list.

Hell, they created a children's best-seller list specifically because of Harry Potter.

Selective memory (4, Interesting)

93 Escort Wagon (326346) | more than 5 years ago | (#27098471)

Not the "porn is what drives adoption of all new formats and technologies" explanation again... has everyone already forgotten that HD DVD was supposed to win over Blu-Ray because of its early adoption by the porn industry? There were only, oh, a few thousand posts to that effect right here on Slashdot - right up until HD DVD died.

Re:Selective memory (1)

olddotter (638430) | more than 5 years ago | (#27098641)

I'm not sure that Blu-ray has won against, well nothing at this point. HD-DVD has been dead for a year and Blu-ray is still not taking off as a format.

Re:Selective memory (1)

Sir_Lewk (967686) | more than 5 years ago | (#27098717)

That's not the point at all. The point is that porn failed to make HD-DVD sucessful.

Re:Selective memory (3, Insightful)

genner (694963) | more than 5 years ago | (#27098735)

I'm not sure that Blu-ray has won against, well nothing at this point. HD-DVD has been dead for a year and Blu-ray is still not taking off as a format.

Thats because porn is the one thing you don't want to see in hi-def.

Re:Selective memory (4, Funny)

Fast Thick Pants (1081517) | more than 5 years ago | (#27098801)

Very true. ASCII art is good enough for me.

Re:Selective memory (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27099273)

Never underestimate the imagination as an erogenous zone, I always say...

Re:Selective memory (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27098671)

I think it's more along the lines of "if you build it, they will have sex on it". Porn doesn't drive innovation, it adapts to it.

Re:Selective memory (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27099039)

Does this mean that porn will eventually adapt to open source as innovation? That's open source I can't wait to contribute to!

Re:Selective memory (1)

againjj (1132651) | more than 5 years ago | (#27099499)

Rule 34 [xkcd.com]

Re:Selective memory (1)

91degrees (207121) | more than 5 years ago | (#27098691)

True. For porn to really work you need better porn. Video worked because people didn't need to go out to watch it. DVD was substantially better quality. The internet just provided so much. e-books offer a certain amount of convenience but it's not exactly a disruptive technology.

Re:Selective memory (1)

Areyoukiddingme (1289470) | more than 5 years ago | (#27099087)

That's because Blu-Ray's ascendence over HD DVD had absolutely nothing to do with the market. Sony decided it was "their turn" to garner all the royalties from the next breakthrough media format (mainly from sheer soul-gnawing jealousy over how much Phillips has made off of CD/CD-ROM royalties) so they bought Blu-Ray's success for cash. HD was winning in the marketplace. Players were cheaper than Blu-Ray players, and available from a wider choice of manufacturer. Discs were cheaper and more widely available. I didn't actually check, but I would bet money that HD DVD production gear, both hardware and software, was also cheaper. That's the reason why the porn industry chose HD. It's always about cost, for them. The porn industry may or may not drive adoption, but for certain its own direction is cost-driven.

What actually happened wasn't made public, but it was visible around the edges. Sony paid off the HD camp. With BIG money. HUGE money. Far more money than they'll ever make on royalties, both because Sony has had serious problems finding tolerable price points for buyers and because they've been incredibly bad at striking licensing deals on anything since the Trinitron tube. I think it was a very bad business decision for Sony, but they will always consider it a win out of blind pride. Sony survives by dint of sheer massive inertia. If not for that, the moon-sized egos running the place would have brought it down two decades ago.

Re:Selective memory (1)

maxume (22995) | more than 5 years ago | (#27099169)

Is porn doing well on Blu-ray?

My favorite explanation is that pimple fetishes aren't that common (DVD leaves enough to the imagination, HD shows you everything you didn't want to see).

Re:Selective memory (1)

Chris Burke (6130) | more than 5 years ago | (#27099173)

So porn doesn't dominate over all other factors. I think that was obvious. I'd think the tiny marketshare of both formats means that porn simply didn't have a chance to drive one versus the other. Because the physical media format that is "winning", and has the most porn on it, is DVD.

Re:Selective memory (1)

Dynedain (141758) | more than 5 years ago | (#27099195)

Actually, I posed this question to someone IN the industry who does editing and disc authoring work (for one of the biggest producers) before the HD-DVD vs. Blu-Ray war was decided. He said the general consensus in the industry this time was to wait and see which format would win out. There wasn't a rush to go to one format or the other. There's far more players involved than there was during the classic VHS/Beta example, which skews the simple mantra of "porn drives technology selection". Just like the mainstream movie producers were afraid of taking the gamble.

Re:Selective memory (1)

Thag (8436) | more than 5 years ago | (#27099289)

Porn doesn't drive development of anything, it's an early adopter. There's a difference.

Hugh Hefner doesn't fund research into new media, but he'll be glad to sell his wares anywhere he can.

Mainly, I think, because porn doesn't necessarily have to be good in order to sell.

Girls like porn? (1)

bluefoxlucid (723572) | more than 5 years ago | (#27098517)

What?

Re:Girls like porn? (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27098783)

Men tend to be visually stimulated, while women tend to be intellectually stimulated. In other words, men look at pr0n, while women read pr0n. So this shouldn't be too surprising.

Re:Girls like porn? (1)

wjh31 (1372867) | more than 5 years ago | (#27098785)

Well there are no girls on the internet, so they have to get it from books

Re:Girls like porn? (1)

NeoSkandranon (515696) | more than 5 years ago | (#27099531)

Yep, although in the case of the bodice ripper genre I think it's almost as much about the "someday my prince/knight/highlander will come and this will happen to me" fantasy (even when they're 75)

Does it drive kindle sells? (3, Interesting)

olddotter (638430) | more than 5 years ago | (#27098583)

That would be interesting if the chance to read naughty lit in public drives the sales of a $350 e-book reader.

Is porn driving uptake of the web? (4, Insightful)

syousef (465911) | more than 5 years ago | (#27098603)

People have evolved to be interested in sex. Those that aren't die out. So of course if the web provides a means to look at boobies, it's going to get more popular...and if an ebook reader allows you to read about people having sex, those who are interested might turn to it. It's a hell of a lot more discrete to use an ebook reader than have a sexually explicit book open. You don't have to hide it behind something else to avoid attracting attention or getting into trouble.

Not surprising at all. (1)

digitalderbs (718388) | more than 5 years ago | (#27098715)

Let's not forget that the kindle 2 now handles 16 shades of gray, and the size of foldouts is virtually limitless with Next/Prev page functionality.

The two top selllers (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27098731)

Having worked in the ebook industry for +N years, and knowing sales figures, the top two sellers of all time: the KJV bible, and the Kamasutra. There is a certain company who is willing to sell this sort of stuff, and there is another who is not for fear of loosing the cash cow 'bible sales'

Well there are a lot of Lucas Kindle books (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27098753)

There are a number of Lucas Kindle titles on Amazon. [tinyurl.com]

Pages don't stick together (1)

relikx (1266746) | more than 5 years ago | (#27098931)

Perfect format, they should co-market with screen wipes.

Why is everyone so excited about porn... (5, Insightful)

jhfry (829244) | more than 5 years ago | (#27098965)

... this is clearly a privacy issue, not a pornography issue. If it were common for me to read in public places, like at work on my lunch break, a e-book would be far better than a typical paperback. Why, because then no one could learn what I am reading unless I tell them.

I don't read anything to be embarrassed about, but I can imagine it is awkward for women into those trash romance novels to hold a lewd covered book when sitting across the aisle from their boss.

Or what about people reading the Bible, Koran, or other religious manuscript. I have seen the way people look at folks reading such material on subways.

E-Books are great for everyone concerned about others judging them by what they read. Hell, in some cities you can be judged by which news paper you read... god forbid your conservative boss sees you reading the New York Times. I know I would hate to have a perfectly good working relationship ruined because I think homosexuals should be allowed to marry and raise children.

I am all for personal privacy in all things personal. I am not a conspiracy theorist that thinks the government or big business is spying and gonna use information against me... but I don't want my reading material, music tastes, or social/political beliefs to be an issue with those I wouldn't readily discuss such things with. A good ebook reader and some head phones allow me to consume media privately, if for no other reason than that.

The privacy paradox (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27099423)

Of course, the irony is that the sellers of these e-books have an easier time tracking who is buying what book than with traditional bookstores (at least if you buy with cash).

This is fantastic! (1)

Gizzmonic (412910) | more than 5 years ago | (#27099185)

Now I can get all the disgusting Spock/Kirk slash that people post at -1 in eBook format!

Politics and other reasons to keep it quiet (1)

o2binbuzios (612965) | more than 5 years ago | (#27099389)

I do a lot of my reading while I travel and while I have not bought any porn on my Kindle, I like the idea that I can read a Michael Savage, or Michael Moore book without advertising my politics. As a guy, there are books I automatically pass over in a book store because a pink cover markets them to women, and it would not do to have 'Skinny Bitches' fall out of my briefcase in a meeting. With an e-book, that shaming factor goes away. To me, the privacy and compact size make them worthwhile.

Why women? (1)

Knowbuddy (21314) | more than 5 years ago | (#27099407)

Why assume that the buyers are women? That sounds rather contrary to the higher proportions of men both in the tech industry and with technophile tendencies.

Let's be honest.

I'd be willing to bet that there are plenty of men buying ebook erotica -- mentally justifying it as "research material".

If you're a socially-awkward male geek, is it really that far of a leap to want to be ahead of the curve when you finally get a woman to talk to you? Yeah, book-learnin' will only get you so far, but it's still better than nothing and a heckuva lot easier to hide than mags or DVDs.

Re:Why women? (2, Informative)

NeoSkandranon (515696) | more than 5 years ago | (#27099635)

I think there might be some misconception about what sort of book it's assumed women are reading. "Bodice rippers" as a genre are written to appeal to 'romantic' fantasies: Strong but possibly oppressed heroine, tall dark stranger, forbidden love affair, etc. Always sexual, rarely graphic.

Credentials:I worked in a bookstore, and we sold the hell out of garbage like danielle steele, always to women, mainly to older women. I'd guess the younger generation just get porn on the internet.

porn myth (4, Informative)

Daimanta (1140543) | more than 5 years ago | (#27099437)

"Once again it seems like 'porn is blazing a path to a new media format"

Again the myth that porn has decided the formatwars is called upon again.

"Many theories regarding why Sony's Betamax failed have arisen over the years. One of the more amusing (and false) is that Sony refused to allow pornographic material on their system. A quick perusal of the Betamax library reveals that adult entertainment was readily available. For example, Playboy Industries released their videos in a dual format, both Betamax and VHS, for most of the 1970s and 80s (and can be confirmed with a quick search through Ebay's adult section, or other used video markets). Second, the adult industry is too small to have any lasting impact on standards selection. According to Forbes.com, adult video income is approximately $1 billion. "The industry is tiny next to broadcast television ($32.3 billion in 1999), cable television ($45.5 billion), the newspaper business ($27.5 billion), Hollywood ($31 billion), even to professional and educational publishing ($14.8 billion). When one really examines the numbers, the porn industry--while a subject of fascination--is every bit as marginal as it seems at first glance." (Link - http://www.forbes.com/2001/05/25/0524porn.html [forbes.com] )"

There, it should be over now.

Barnes and Noble bought Fictionwise?!? (2, Insightful)

argent (18001) | more than 5 years ago | (#27099645)

Oh, damn, I hope they don't kill the DRM-free side of the store.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>