For another perspective on pornography, I want to share with all of you Catherine MacKinnon's basic position, and I will supply a supporting argument that is grounded in contemporary evolutionary biology.
             She thinks that all women are hurt by porn. She thinks that porn perpetuates the male image of all females as sex objects. In a male dominated world this perpetuates the subordinate status of women generally (taking it as obvious that women generally have substantially less power and status in our society than do men).
             I think that for virtually all men, the first and dominant reaction to the presence of a female is to wonder "can I have sex with her?" This might rest solely on the evolutionary biological grounds that males have the best chance of passing their genes into the next generation by sowing their seed as widely as possible. It might be, however, that a variety of features of our culture about which some feminists raise questions, including pornography quite prominently, play an important role in fostering and reinforcing this male approach to women. Furthermore, though evolutionary biology explains why a male would be inclined to sow his seed widely, it suggests that females, for whom reproduction requires a tremendously greater investment of resources (nine months, lots of nutrients, etc.), are naturally inclined towards a situation of stability (monogamy, shared responsibility for providing resources, etc.) within which to make the investment that reproduction demands. If porn fosters a perception of the nature of women that coincides with the male reproductive strategy, but is in conflict with the female strategy, then it follows that porn is bad for women.
             ...