Pornography's moral dilemma; solution?

[Riddil]

I had an interesting chain of thoughts this morning. I stumbled onto this humorous vid: http://current.com/items/89298493_internet_porn_you which makes light of pornography. In the comments thread of that video, someone posted a youtube clip from an interview with Noam Chomsky decrying pornography: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SNlRoaFTHuE

In the interview Chomsky basically declares pornography as one of the vilest creations thrust upon women. Of course, on the other side of the argument you have Jenna Jameson, who had a self-declared victory in a "porn debate" at Oxford. http://www.esquire.com/features/what...a-jameson-0808

Currently I live in China, and pornography is completely illegal, in all forms. Art galleries even need to be careful with the pieces they choose to show. But this debate is nothing new, it's been raging for hundreds of years. I'll be lazy and won't check my sources, but I'm willing to bet that the porn debate first got moving with the on-set of the printing press. It likely picked up steam with photography, then with movies, then TV, then recorded media (VCR, etc). It seems every new leap forward in communication brings on a new battle between porn supporters, and detractors. The internet has revived the debate, primarily because for the first time you can gain access to porn without any real effort.

I actually don't want to concern myself with debating the appropriateness for the existence of porn. That's gone on for a long long time, and I don't think there's any easy answer there. However, it seems to me that the primary argument against porn is that it debases the women who make porn. If that really is the cornerstone of the debate (it seems to be Chomsky's top concern, the center point of the argument the Chinese government uses against pornography, and even Jenna Jameson admits it can be a problem), then does the computer age hold a solution?

There are already "simulation" pornography games. How long can it be until you get some new 3D porn company (Dixar?) to come along and make porno's entirely with CGI characters? If suddenly you can make porno's without any actual sex, no one physically involved in the action, then is this "cornerstone problem" completely resolved?

Normally if I post something in the Philosophy forum, I proceed to offer my opinion. This time I honestly don't have an opinion yet, I'm still undecided about the veracity / usefulness of this argument.

Is it a non-starter? Or does it really deflate this point?

Addendum: I won't argue that the entire issue could be resolved through CGI. Even if you resolve the issue of "debasement of the porn actress", you're still left with the other two pillars of the argument against porn:
1) It objectifies all women
2) It gives men an unrealistic view of women, and of sexual relationships in general

This point doesn't address either of those points, and it's possible you could argue it would even make those worse. However, I still think it's a useful topic, since those issues are conceptual topics, but the issue of "debasement of the actress" is a real, physical concern. You can argue that a 15 year-old boy isn't harming his psyche by watching donkey porn. But you can't argue that a 17 year-old runaway girl who is hooked on coke and making donkey porn isn't harming herself.