One might get the idea that the only thing a man need do to make a woman enjoy sex is to pound her fast and hard.
While I'm not about to argue that porn is a particularly accurate depiction of sex, I always find it interesting that these kinds of criticisms of it always seem to ignore the frequent cunnilingus in it. One of the things I like about this article is that it's about data mining rather than selection bias. Not to say that the article isn't biased, but that it's less biased.
I can't speak for other people, but I can offer you insight into how I think about these things.
It's not that I ignore the frequent cunnilingus in porn, it's that I don't see the need to mention it because I don't look at porn as an equation, as in "Well, he's going from ungentle and obviously painful anal directly to rough fellatio, but that's perfectly okay because of the long cunnilingus at the beginning."
I'm not trying to portray all porn as bad and degrading, nor am I denying that there is good (and sometimes even realistic) sex in it. Nor do I claim that it all should be realistic. What concerns me and motivates me to comment on porn are the following things:
1) the prevalence of casual degradation of women in porn.
2) what people learn to expect based on porn.
3) how many people seem to be either unaware of some (or all) of the above or aware but believe it's normal and acceptable.
Do you have any reason to believe people are actually looking to porn as some sort of instruction manual? Rates of rape (at least in the US) have fallen dramatically over the last two decades, which isn't something you'd expect if men see porn as an information resource.
People do tend to imitate what they see. Certainly it's not set in stone and there are always counterexamples, but overall, the trend is to mimic observed behaviour - hence the idea of things like 'leading by example'.
That being said, there's a lot of different types of porn. Saying "I watch porn" is like saying "I read fiction". It certainly tells us a bit about you, but isn't particularly definitive - do you read lightweight trash like Dan Brown, do you prefer mysteries, bodice-rippers, fantasies, war novels, or the complexities of writers like Eco? Perhaps a little bit of everything depending on the mood?
While I'm not about to argue that porn is a particularly accurate depiction of sex, I always find it interesting that these kinds of criticisms of it always seem to ignore the frequent cunnilingus in it. One of the things I like about this article is that it's about data mining rather than selection bias. Not to say that the article isn't biased, but that it's less biased.