No, I don't. Indeed, I very rarely see any, unless I go out of my way to look for it.
No, definitely not.
I don't see that in my spam either.
I made a quick survey of the 84 messages currently in my spam box. The breakdown is as follows:
24 finance, mostly pump&dump stock scams 15 entirely in a non-English language 9 consisting of "confuser" text and a GIF image (possible p*rn?) 8 advertising drugs (including ED drugs) 5 ads for diploma mills 4 completely unidentifiable (e.g., just a random URL) 4 419 scams 4 pirated software 4 offering credit (phishing attempts?) 2 complaints sent to the wrong abuse desk 1 advertisement for a sex toy 1 ad for judgment processing (pyramid scheme?) 1 ad for an art gallery 1 ad for a Chinese manufacturing company eager to sell me widgets 1 "backscatter" bounce message for spam sent to someone else(I then deleted the contents of the spam box wholesale, of course.)
So in the category of "p*rn" or things potentially related thereto, I see at most 14 out of 84 messages or 17%. This seems to be substantially more that what I see regularly on the Web, although it's hard to generate hard numbers when only the big search providers have the databases. (There's actually an interesting theory problem here. Given a map of the link structure of the Web, such as that used in approximate form by the search engines, you can consider the average path length of a random walk before it enters the "p*rn zone". My intuition is that there are many connected subgraphs which have no out-links closer to the "p*rn zone" than the average for all sites, and that most unintentional access to p*rn sites involves either searching for it or mistyping URLs. Has anyone done this research yet?)
-GAWollman