> People who go into porn, unless forced--and if we can find out who is forced, we should do something about it--choose to do so, even if it's because of things that happened in their past.

I guess that what I'm trying to say is that traumatic experiences can limit ones ability to make a choice that is free or rational or in ones best interests. That is part of what is so very tragic about people having abusive traumatic experiences.

> There are some things in which you take or allow risk; other things you do not. You can't prevent all harm from happening.

Yes, we can't prevent all harm from happening. But we can try to weigh some of the benefits and some of the harms and do what we can to minimise harms.

I know there are some people in the United States who think that minimising harm is something that they simply need not be concerned about because their focus is solely on their individual rights. I'm kind of thinking of a bumper sticker that I've seen about how the only way you can take my gun is to pry it from my cold dead hands... Never mind how many people are injured or killed as a result of 'accidents' resulting from lawfully owned firearms some people think that the harms are completely irrelevant when compared with their individual rights. Such an attitude is (I really think this is fair to say) a distinctively American phenomenon that is limited to certain people in the United States. I appreciate that not everyone embraces it and I appreciate that some people have it in some other parts of the world too but it doesn't seem to get as much air time as it does in the United States of America. If you are of that opinion in general then my thoughts here probably won't affect you greatly. For those who think that it IS important to limit peoples rights when exercising certain rights results in harms to others (where harm to others might be viewed as an infringement of others rights even) might feel a bit more sympathetic. E.g., If you have a right to carry a firearm and I have a right to not be shot then if a significant number of people are shot due to firearms that are lawfully carried then when do you start to say that peoples right to not be shot takes priority such that peoples right to carry a firearm needs to be limited???? The debate is typically not couched in those terms... But people have a right (over-ridable to be sure) not to be harmed. And people have a right (over-ridable to be sure) to do what they choose. But sometimes peoples ability to choose is limited. And sometimes the consequences of their choice (when their choice harms themself or someone else) gives society grounds to over-ride their choice.

> In the US, we have freedom, and that's our right.

But it isn't unlimited. You don't have the freedom to yell 'bomb' on the plane or 'fire' in the movie theatre. You don't have the freedom to have sexual relations with minors. Why not? Because it harms them? Every single one? The majority?

> Even if things that happened in our past cause us to make poor choices today, it's got to be our choice, and not someone else's.

That depends on whether your choice harms others.

I don't see how being a Goth harms others.

> I have known a lot of people who view porn, who don't rape women or children.

Rape is one kind of harm. There are other kinds of harm too, however. Back to training ones body to respond sexually to themes of domination and submission... To respond sexually to treating a woman as a blow up doll who you can arrange the limbs and position of and do as you please...

> I think sexual education is important for people to learn how their bodies are supposed to respond and how to respect each other sexually.

I agree. But current sexual education programs consist in promoting abstenence and saying that condoms are porous. Porn kind of picks up where the public education programs leave off...

> I'm concerned about men who won't stop if a woman says no, but I don't think it's the vast majority of men in the United States.

The majority of men who were surveyed stated that they didn't believe that they should have to stop if a woman says no. The surveys have been conducted in the United States of America and also in Australia. When I was living in New Zealand we had poster advertising in pubs and around campus directly attempting to counter those prevalent belifs.

How much does porn model safe sex? I've never seen a condom being used in pornography... How many women say 'no no no no no no yeeeeeeeeeeeeeeees' acting in front of the camera in pornography? how many (actors) enact enjoyment of rape?????

IMHO even if people freely choose to manufacture such material the existence of it harms individuals who consume it (leaving aside the harm of people involved in manufacture). Every single individual who consumes it? No, not every single one. One needs to weigh the costs and benefits... But personally... I find it hard to see how getting ones rocks off compares with the social attitudes that the material condones.