> Surely it is glaringly apparent that the *vast majority* of pornography does
> indeed revolve around the degradation of women, in the specific sense that
> he states: women are reduced to vulgar sex objects, conforming to male
> fantasies of super-lubed, inflatable fuck-machines with embryonic
> personalities. That is, plainly, a form of symbolic violence against women,
I'm offended by speedoed imagery of body builders, those same porno scenes with a Harry Reems, John Holmes, Ron Jeremy etc., the Chippendales, Fabio, etc. etc. etc. How much further must we twist the logic to define these as more symbology worth of objection and add that "violence" kicker some way or another? Not far.
Don't confuse animus with animal lust, acquiescence with agreement and support, apples with oranges, etc. etc. etc.
> and not just the women who participate in the industry. And the logic of
> pornography is in that sense...
Let's leave "that sense" under a rock where it belongs and get back to reality.
There is nothing under the sun, nothing, that is not objected to somehow, somewhere, somewhen. Our tasking is to recognize various of these objections as crackpot when that is the case and reclassify the objector where necessary. If only on that topic.