If I hadn't seen the header, I'd have thought this came from the Onion. Considering that its from the Metro, and that Onion stories have confused news people before, I still that might be the origin.
They couldn't find any super religious people for their study? Even ones that would lie, if necassary, to sustain an image? They didn't look very hard.
It's not just from the metro, it's originally from the Telegraph, I believe.
As for the super religious people--I think they wanted "an average sampling" since religious people would be a very limited group to compare with those who have looked at pornography. Unless you compared religious folk of the same group and had porn vs no porn.
Three things:
ReplyDeleteIf I hadn't seen the header, I'd have thought this came from the Onion. Considering that its from the Metro, and that Onion stories have confused news people before, I still that might be the origin.
They couldn't find any super religious people for their study? Even ones that would lie, if necassary, to sustain an image? They didn't look very hard.
It Canadian researchers. Nuff said.
It's not just from the metro, it's originally from the Telegraph, I believe.
ReplyDeleteAs for the super religious people--I think they wanted "an average sampling" since religious people would be a very limited group to compare with those who have looked at pornography. Unless you compared religious folk of the same group and had porn vs no porn.
Awww, so mean to the Canadians.