Pornstars are psychologically as healthy as other women?

[Warren DeMontague]

36. Part of the problem is the idea that there is some monolithic entity called "porn"

and usually what happens in these "discussions" is, the folks making the anti-argument, such as it is, latch onto the most egregious examples of whatever they're trying to find, and say "see! this is porn!"

Or else they're trying to argue that "porn" programs the fitzwardles of impressionable young mens' frimhammits into terrible contrortions of snizwafflery. Except, fact being, that the diverse media menu which is available (and isn't going away) now via our interconnected world, allows folks to find what they like, and some people seem to like snizwafflery. (Lest the inevitable derailment train try to go off the tracks at this point, please assume all the snizwafflery involves consenting adults).

No one, I would think, would try to argue that there isn't a lot of bad porn out there, a lot of stupid porn out there, and certainly some negative or racist porn out there as well. The same could be said for music. Good grief, there's a lot of bad music out there. But no one tries to make broad, ham-fisted general arguments about "music" (like "music" is bad!), do they?

They're capable of distinguishing, for instance, Mozart from Pavement from Frank Zappa from the Nuge.

So lacking a definition short of Potter Stewart's "I know it when I see it", what, then, is mainstream, readily available, legal "porn"?

Porn is still pictures or films of consenting adults, either naked or having sex. (personally, I do seem to prefer them to be physically attractive, but I'm funny that way) That's the broadest, most simple definition I think one can come up with, and when you cut through all the noise, that is what the people who have a problem with "porn" seem to have a problem with, first and primarily.