Pornography Case

After reviewing the articles Use of Pornography in a Random Sample of Norwegian Heterosexual Couples written by Kristian Daneback, Bente Træen and Sven-axel Månsson and You, Me and Porn Make Three by Liza Featherstone, it is apparent that they have some similarities in how they were put together and presented. In particular, the peer-reviewed evidence-based scholarly journal was the focus of a study that examined pornography as it was used to enhance the sex-life in couple relationships (Daneback, Træen, & Månsson, 2009) and the popular media article presented some pros and cons regarding the use of pornographic material by couples (Featherstone, 2011). Both publications provided information on a similar subject using multiple contributing sources that are reputable in their field.

Other than visually, the articles also differ in various ways. One of the main differences is in how the documents were laid out. For example, the scholarly journal was very scientific in its reading and did not present a biased opinion. It was full of statistics and figures and outlined the method, procedure, measures and results of the particular study (Daneback, Træen, & Månsson, 2009). In contrast, the popular media article was heavily biased by context. It contained subjective personal accounts and read like an opinionated blog with seeds of documented research scattered throughout (Featherstone, 2011). Another difference in the two articles is the results produced. Where the popular media article failed to provide anything beyond a “do what’s best in your situation” answer based on professional opinion, the scholarly journal provided quantitative results to a scientific study.

Even though both articles have their similarities and differences, they also hold specific value to individuals for their different purposes. While the scholarly article is scientific in nature, it may prove confusing and/or boring to someone that is solely interested