If you don't like porn, I have a solution:

[hifiguy]

123. The almost religious faith held by some in the notion

that these externalities (i.e., "objectification&quot in fact exist is rather puzzling to me. That they exist is taken as a given that cannot be challenged, yet no objective, peer-reviewed scientific evidence exists in support of their existence.

Taking such an assertion on faith alone is just as wack as accepting the myth of transubstantiation at face value. It is not possible to will something into existence just because you wish it to be true to support your preconceived conclusions.

Furthermore, the entire concept of "objectification" seems awfully murky. This is not measuring red shift in light from distant galaxies, which can be mathematically proven. The term "objectification" itself is highly subjective because there is no way to define the term in a cut and dried way that stands, like a mathematical proof, outside the debate. So the term is basically meaningless.

The anti-porn people remind me of nothing so much as the anti-choice people who just "know" that a woman who terminates a pregnancy suffers some incredible, yet unquantifiable and unverifiable harm. No evidence is offered other than the belief that it MUST be so. And it must be so because it supports their position, evidence be damned.

ETA: I am talking here about "conventional" porn - pix or movies of people having consensual sex, not the kinds of hyper-extreme (and to me personally disgusting) things LiberalLoner has described here: http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=828673