On porn
I wonder if porn is the greatest weapon yet devised by the male backlash?
Consider porn's conventions:
- Head jobs: The woman cannot speak through her mouthful of cock
- Male orgasm: Denoted by the degradation of jism spattering the woman's face
- Female orgasm: Unknown bar whimpers designed to secure the male ego
- The female body: Sculpted (apparently, adjustable implants have now been perfected)

Some of the conventions could arguably be adapting the sex act to the requirements of visual entertainment, but from what David Foster Wallace unearths in his brilliant essay, "Big Red Son", porn genres have been heading in search of the peverse and degrading, with the burgeoning genre of gonzo porn giving average schmoes hope by chronicling the finding (on beaches, generally) of infantilised women and persuading them to have (in Wallace's words) "wild and anatomically diverse sex". Degradation porn has advanced too, according to Wallace, with recent films capturing twenty men spitting on a woman who then proceeds to blows them violently.

Add the ubiquity and billions of dollars generated by stirring men's urges in combination with degradation, and the rare alliance between feminists and Christianity begins to make sense. I'm not moralising, I promise: most porn turns me off these days.

On another note, what of the distinction between erotica and porn? Isn't erotica differentiated simply by the literary method of show-don't-tell: lingering shots of faces and sinuous bodies entwining, without the jackboot closeups, the microscopic engagement with genitalia in motion?