I can quite happily go through a hardcore pornography magazine stopping at each photo and describing how it's a demonstration of the womans spiritual embrace of her partner, or that this man is proud of his anatomy and wanted to show it to everyone involved, or how this womans breasts embody the soul of all humankind with their large life giving potential, that the dyed hair is a point made against the false consumerism of our civilisation, literally laid bare for all to see in her nudity.
Quite clearly it is not hard core pornography, it is a dossier of philosophical points against a chequered mosaic of life, and these people are not degrading themselves for money or the titilation of others, they're expressing their intellectual views in an artistic manner.
All of which completely overlooks that I did not find fault with the person who took the photo JJ posted, the women who posted it, or its existence. I do not agree with those photos, and I cannot ban everything I disagree with, nor do I wish to.
But this doesn't mean it's right, nor does it mean you can deprive people of their sense of offence. I can quite happily erect a photograph of you and Panda having sex outside your mothers house if I bought the house opposite, and I'm sure that 99% of the US population would understand if you took offence, found it uncomfortable, or asked ot take it down, or all of those three. It doesn't make what you did wrong, it doesn't make sex wrong, it doesn't make photographing it wrong.
But I doubt you'd listen if I then said that it was perfectly reasonable, as I chose the lifestyle of erecting large indecent photographs, and that the wrong party was you for being offended.
It isn't just women or gay people who're offended/peeved by objectification of women, for the sake of balance, I present this image, created by kevinbolk:
