Speaking of which . . .
The only thing wrong with pornography is that most of it is really really bad art.
There is a large percentage of males on this planet who biologically have more testosterone coursing through their bloodstream than they know what to do with. This planet would see a lot more males going barbarian - "raping and pillaging" - if porn was not available as a safety-valve.
I personally have no problem with sexually-explicit material in the art I view.
The 1970s feminist self-deception is that pornography is men "exploiting" women.
But in the last two or three years, there has been a flood of brutally honest, unsentimental films by women filmmakers about female teenage sexuality:
--Young and Wild (Marialy Rivas, 2012, Chile),
--Hemel (Sacha Polak, 2012, Netherlands),
--Clip (Maja Milos, 2012 Croatia),
--Turn Me On Dammit (Jannicke Systad Jacobsen, 2011, Norway),
amongst the better ones.
The women portrayed in these films are objectifying themselves (and others), but the end-effect is not the least bit "exploitive" of these women. The effect is actually liberating (but not exactly in a "happy ending" kind of way). And each film contains at least one very (NC-17) sexually-explicit scene - in some cases, dozens of them. And all are very necessary to the plot and/or the characterization of the protagonist.
These films are at the cutting-edge of world cinema, right now. And these are films by and about women. Call them "pornographic," if you like. But you are rendering this word meaningless - because, with it, you are attacking women. You are attacking truth.
Also some high-brow male directors have turned a cold eye upon this subject of teenage female lust:
--Francois Ozon's Young and Beautiful (2013, France).
And perhaps the most searching and intelligent movie (about any subject) produced in the 21st century so far,
--Lars von Trier's magnificent 2-volume 4-hour opus Nymphomaniac (2014, Denmark).
Get with it, guys!
I don't think you realize how anti-women and how prudish most of you sound.
Jane.