I assume you do see a problem with kiddie porn and porn that depicts rape with no question as to it being rape. If not then my argument to you would be that in both cases there is a negative effect on the people in the video itself. The creation of the video hurt somebody, or multiple people.
I don't as long as no one was actually hurt.
With children that means resorting to photorealistic CGI obviously. With rape porn you can just use actors that fake that.
The "gateway theory" is inconclusive at best and conclusive in the opposite direction at worst; a lot of research indicates that porn reduces rape numbers
I generally feel that watching porn in moderation is fine. However the concern for me is how it effects those involved in the creation of such. You would think we have enough porn videos right now, but apparently not as more is being created all the time
It works that ay with all media. You'd think we have enough music yet new music keeps being created; same with films. This is a function of how copyright works which requires that you keep making new stuff as you can't just profit of something you didn't make.
and it is questionable as to how the actors (particularly the women) are effected by being in such roles.
Probably less than people who join the military
As well not all porn actors use "protection" which puts them at risk for STD's as part of their job which is rather a bad point.
STDs are actually close to nonexistent in the porn industry due to highly rigorous testing provided for free.
Apart from that STDs and protection are often very misunderstood. People often think that without protection the transmission rate is close to 100% and with protection it's close to 0%. In reality condoms only cut the rate in half or 1/3 in terms of transmission rate and transmission rates are not that high without condoms as people often think. With HIV it's lower than 1%.
An interesting fact for instance is that the transmission rate while using a condom for HIV is higher from the penetrator than the receiver during anal sex than in reverse without a condom. So if the receiver has HIV and they don't use a condom there's a lower chance the penetrator will get HIV from the receiver than there is for the receiver to get it from the penetrator WITH a condom.