JOE's obsession with bondage photographs points to interesting ground. It's a fact that some men are aroused by seeing women bound and helpless. It's also a fact that some women enjoy and consent to being bound and (ostensibly) helpless for a while. How does JOE know that the women in the photographs he deplores didn't consent to being tied up? How does he know whether most of the men who enjoy these photographs imagine that the women have not consented? Viewing someone bound and helpless and viewing someone bound and helpless in play are two different things, aren't they?
Outlawing certain kinds of images helps eroticize them; it's a losing strategy. We might do better to concentrate on prosecuting the perpetrators of any criminal acts recorded in the photos/videos. That would satisfy the requirement of protecting those unwilling or unable to give consent to sexual/parasexual acts, while avoiding the thicket of "intent."

The opening on the program on pornography was a male view of the topic. I didn't get to listen to the whole program, but I do hope that some women were able to comment. I spent four years as the advisor to a central European delegation to the UN Beijing Women's Conference while living in Central Europe. My eyes were opened in a new way.I learned about women who were kidnapped, had their passports taken away and forced into prostitution, pornography, and other forms of sexual slavery. Children who were sold by their parents and enslaved by brothels or families! Women who were sexually abused as small children by members of their family and had little self worth so they worked in porn. There were few woman involved in pornography who chose to engage in these acts that supposedly give men pleasure. Have you noticed that there are few records of the men giving woman pleasure? Try comparing erotica to pornography and you might come up with beautiful bodies of both sexes , consenting adults, the exchange of pleasures for fun and love compared to enslavement. I want to be certain that Stanford men get a little more down to earth about the cost of life to women in pornography rather than merely stating that some men like it and some don't. Try seeing it from the point of view of women and children.

On this topic, I have to side with Joe. While "theoretically" pornography needn't be patriarchal, objectifying of women, and violence-promoting, the reality is that mainstream pornography is clearly all three.
The argument that "perversion is in the eye of the beholder" risks moral nihilism. Some people experience sublime pleasure in watching or committing violence, but it should still be regulated and morally condemned.
Consent is not the most important issue in this debate, as feminists have long pointed out that women are publicly celebrated in patriarchal societies for willingly and enthusiastically embracing their own degradation and oppression. A female porn actress that apparently enjoys her humiliation and objectification is rewarded for embracing her "bondage" by becoming a "star." This is hardly adequate compensation for venereal disease (only 17% of male porn stars use condoms), abuse, and public humiliation.
Seeing pornography as a matter of "taste" masks the structural abuse, poor treatment of women in the sex industries, and perpetuates moral relativism with matters of gender equality.
Whether or not there is room for erotic imagery in culture, and whether this imagery can be created in such a way as to be non-patriarchal is a very interesting question, but should be treated as a separate question from the factual realities of our existing "pornographied" culture.
I recommend the eye-opening and balanced documentary Price of Pleasure (a preview of which is available here for viewing online: http://www.mediaed.org/cgi-bin/commerce.cgi?preadd=action&key=235) for some intelligent views and clear examples regarding this important subject.

Thanks to all for the thoughtful comments on a subject that generates a lot of ambivalence for me.
While I detest the degradation of women (or anyone else) by the industry, I have yet to come across any tolerable proposals that allow government to suppress any form of expression. (Let's not forget that, at one time, James Joyce's "Ulysses" and Allen Ginsberg's "Howl" were deemed pornographic.)
The better solution may be sustained public education on the degradation inflicted by the industry on both actors and audiences. Aggressive boycotts and sustained condemnation of the industry's practices and adverse social impacts (following Sara's example) are two options. As someone, I forget who, famously said: "the best answer to offensive speech is more speech."
In a free marketplace of ideas, pornography will eventually lose. As with the absurd "war on drugs," the struggle against the exploitation of actors and the debasement of its audience by the porn industry should focus on curtailing demand rather than supply.
Sara suggests that eroticism becomes pornographic when the participants, especially women, are subjected to coercion or, less overtly, some form of duress. This seems like a workable definition. But I balk at the idea that government can be trusted to distinguish eroticism -- depictions of sexual activity between freely consenting adults -- and pornographic imagery in which the will of the actors is overborne by some form of coercion.

I agree with Duff. I know women who LOVE bondage and so forth. There are women who love being mistresses, and men who love the stuff their mistress do to them. I would consider all of that stuff "porn." But who is to debate taste in sexual expression? What is totally unacceptable to me is child porn, unnecessary violence like "snuff films." and anything that is produced because women (or men!) are enslaved or feel like their only options to survive are to do things with their bodies that they would prefer not do under normal circumstances. This takes education, not legistlation that messes with the 1st Ammendment!

Weather consented or not, I believe in general humans look to each other for knowledge of truth, when used , trust is broken. Because one may consent, dosn't mean it is enjoyed. Pleasuring your mate is something a couple married through God is where this belongs.
If an act is started then decidedly feels wrong there is no reason to continue to falseify that because consented could not be resinded. To me each and every act a man performs on a woman is for his own pleasure and only ends with his satisfaction. This has been my experience.
Once an act of violent sex has been performed it seems to stay in that man's mind and he then continues to look at all women in such manner. I've seen the look come my way and it feels belittling even tho I had nothing to do with the consent or act, I feel the vibrations of it.

I haven't gotten a chance to listen to the show yet, but I can't wait until it's up online.
I also just want to respond to a few of you who seem to make overbroad generalizations about the people (consenting women) who do porn.
I've done porn for coming on 4 years. I have a graduate degree and a professional career; I don't do it because I have to but because I enjoy it. And I don't find it to be objectifying; what's more objectifying for me are people like Duff who pigeon-hole me for the simple fact that I do porn.
The truth is, I make porn because I love my body and I love to share that with others. Not to get all hippie righteous on you, but sex is a natural, beautiful thing. Why can't we celebrate that once in a while instead of labeling any depiction of it degrading and objectifying?
And while there are a lot of bad parts of the porn industry, it's not like every woman who goes into it gets taken advantage of and infected with HIV. I only work with photographers that I trust, and I have never felt endangered. It takes a little discretion, but there girls out there all over the place getting into bad situations and getting venereal diseases NOT doing porn. All of you who suggest better sex-ed are totally on point.
Finally, why do all of you people care so much about bondage? It sounds like you've all got some closet fetishes to deal with. Bondage is no more objectifying than any other genre of porn, just because it involves ropes. Let people have their kinks and get over it. If there's criminal behavior it's not porn's fault.

Please don't interrupt your guests! She is very interesting, and I felt annoyed that the hosts seemed more interested in expressing their own somewhat misinformed ideas than letting the audience hear about her research.

This topic - and especially the one of sadomasochism - cannot even begin to be discussed without first discussing general views of morality. As a moral relativist, I see most of what has been said as being very far removed from the issue at hand, and so I can't say much about it other than in advocating moral relativism. Believe it or not, moral relativism would actually help humanity satisfy our most shared moral feelings, by illuminating the where the issue actually is - in our heads.

And I am willing to bet, if Joe is a real-life person, his fantasies "debase women," by his own definition. One can argue that human nature is inherently undignified. One can argue anything. Prudish anti-porn rants are ineffective, in any case.