The economic argument against porn that some people have cited here - i.e. the argument that a woman who really, really doesn't want to do it might feel compelled to do it out of desperation - is the one I have the most sympathy with.
However, the main problem I have with that argument is that porn is not exactly the only job in that field and you can make quite a lot of money just from stripping, so it's not like there's this big leap between convent school and Bang Bros. I remember being linked to an episode of the Tyra Banks show (no, I don't watch it normally) where they had retired porn actresses talking about their regrets, saying they started off as strippers, making thousands of pounds per night, but went into porn because they wanted to make more money and drive around in flashy cars, i.e. they had a free choice in the matter and were not even compelled in economic terms. There is also the fact that genuine amateur porn does exist, and I have even read somewhere (nice accurate citation for you all) that the paid porn industry sees it as a commercial threat.
I certainly think there is a dark side to pornography, but as aikiwolfie has argued, that can be said of many, many industries, and if this is anyone's main objection then I would say the argument is one of regulation rather than principle.
Again,the reason I make the comparison with offtopic rather than with male porn stars is people who argue against porn tend to take the view that, because there is more demand for women and they make more money from it, it is far more exploitative of women. I don't personally agree with that but I thought I'd turn the argument on its head.
Bookmarks