Pornography and sexism

This is adapted from an e-mail I sent in reply to an argument about to which magazines we would like to subscribe.

I do believe that sexism is defined as discrimination or prejudice, typically
against women. I understand that some, or even most, pornography is made by
abusing the 'stars', both men and women (i.e poor industrial relations, low pay,
limited working rights and so on), but I'd hardly call that sexism. It's just
unpleasant.
I also guess that famous magazines pay really quite well for their pictures, and
I can't understand why a woman earning a living is sexism. I understand that
many women find the concept of pornography distasteful, and would never do it
themselves, but personal taste and sense of disgust is very different from
discrimination.
Pornography shows, overwhelmingly, women because that is what the market seems
to want. I assume that if pictures of naked men were popular they'd be sold too.
If a desire for pictures is so different between the sexes it's not
discrimination. No-one seems to get upset when a man calls himself heterosexual
because he's discriminating against other men. Market forces like this are not
usually called discriminatory.

If you find it objectionable that many men can take pleasure in seeing pretty
women, you're fighting a losing battle, since it is intrinsic to humanity that
we appreciate beauty, and that most men find women sexually appealing. I'm not
entirely sure why being sexually appealing is being discriminated against. Even
if it is, I don't believe that there's any evidence that pornography causes
this, rather than being a result of it.

If, on the other hand, you accept that men might have such instincts, but
believe that they should be controlled, and that pornography is clearly these
instincts being uncontrolled, I have to ask why you find it so necessary to
control other people's behaviours, and why you want to control men's instincts.
Why discriminate against men? Men who examine pornography typically do it in
private and
harm no-one.
If the argument is solely that it might lead them to treat women differently
elsewhere, then I think you'll find yourselves arguing for us to ban, amongst
many, Christianity and Islam, since many preachers of these religions have a
tendency to denounce homosexuals and, to a lesser extent, women, which might
lead the faithful to treat them differently elsewhere in life. Of course, what
we actually find is that even people who explicitly believe that such people are
inferior are able to treat them with respect and dignity in person. How much
more able is a man to do so when rather than being brainwashed by extreme
beliefs he is simply enjoying one thing about women? Being sexually appealing
and a rational, thinking being are not mutually exclusive, unlike being sinful
and inferior and worthy of respect.

I can find nowhere in pornography (assuming it is, as I said, legally produced)
the denial of human rights, respect or dignity. The women in such pornography
would have freely consented to make it, as is their right. If you think that
it's so undignified that we shouldn't allow people to consent to do it, why do
we allow people to work in service jobs at all? I'd call it undignified to model
underwear, although that's not pornography. I'd not be respected working in
MacDonald's or as a waiter in many restaurants.
We don't ban undignified jobs because it's a person's right to decide how much
it is worth to do something unpleasant. Many marxists argue that it is
undignified to work for money at all, and that's their decision, but most of us
have no intention of letting their beliefs rule our lives.
It's also a far cry from discrimination or prejudice and hence sexism.

2.
If you find sexual interactions degrading, that's your own belief, and a
commonly held one. But there's no possible way to justify calling it a universal
truth, and it is up to you to interact with people who agree with you (or not)
as you please. It is not right to impose your beliefs on all others by calling
something offensive to you and therefore immoral even for complete strangers to
make, purchase or enjoy.

In summary, although I can agree that most pornography produced nowadays is not
produced in the most pleasant environment, I don't think that there's any
discrimination instrinsic to pornography, and I'd rather you pointed out the
moral failings of the companies and their production methods than assume that
pornography is evil.
I can also agree that I'd find pornography ... distasteful, but
we can sort that out by voting in the poll, rather than trying to avoid
democratic decisions by calling it offensive. I find it far more offensive that
anyone would seek to control what ought to be a democratic decision by invoking
offence. Pornography would have to be truly discriminatory (and therefore
illegal) before I'd agree that we shouldn't vote on it as we'd vote on anything
else. What if I decided that the Economist, because of its right-wing views, is
offensive? What about the Grauniad, because of its poor English and left-wing
views? How dare you include such scandalous items in the poll? I think we need
another group e-mail apologising for this offensive content too.
If it's legal, then there is the perfect right and
absolute duty to put suggested subscriptions on the poll, whether they're
offensive to someone or not.
[...]'s original complaint suggests that finding the images would make [it] an unwelcoming place to many women, and I agree. I think that not doing the duty to consider all proposals and treat them the same would be even more wrong.

I hope that next time someone finds a thing offensive and considers complaining, my counter-complaint about whether offence is sufficient reason for doing anything about it can be assumed.

If I've missed a vital point in the argument, I'd like to hear it, because I really do feel as though I've missed something important. I truly cannot understand how you link these things together so easily, and I've laid out my guess at the arguments involved to save you time and effort if they are yours.