"What is Porn Anyway?" is a philosophical question. So you're actually misfiring in your claim of irrelevancy.
OP opened a can of worms. Seriously. (No, really: seriously.)
Arguing that it's art? That it is in itself valuable to culture as "low art" is? This isn't a question restricted to the UK, and it's one we need to get philosophically astute about pretty fast. So, again: Porn is not the problem — you are.
Whatever it is, analogies to automobile accidents and art, in any sense, is a stretch beyond palatability, and makes this entire discussion look entirely intellectually one-sided. I think such talk is a disservice to the discussion, and maybe porn should be blocked on those grounds alone, for I am quite sure OP's aesthetics are common.
The uncontroversial answer to "what is porn anyway?" that underpins the UK ban is "something children shouldn't watch".
This is ostensibly a "think of the children" move, it has nothing to do with aesthetics or art, low or high. In reality, it's probably also an old school conservative play to "clean up" the filth.
The uncontroversial answer to "what is porn anyway?" that underpins the UK ban is "something children shouldn't watch".
On the list of things children should not watch people having sex should really not be close to the top. It is just sex. After breathing, drinking and eating it is one of the most natural and common activities on earth. A coyote trying to smash a bird with an anvil seems a way less appropriate thing for children to watch.
I never thought about which countries are producing all the porn. I tried to find some numbers but it turns out to be quite hard. I still found some interesting numbers [1] although they do not really answer what I was looking for, which country is producing how many hours of porn every year.
Also, in a thread about censorship: an accidental showing of a half-covered nipple on terrestrial broadcast TV would not result in a half million dollar fine and many many years of legal action. (I think the original fine was eventually overturned, but only because the FCC had changed a policy before taking action??)
US TV shows have to censor their language unless they're broadcast on cable or satellite.
OP opened a can of worms. Seriously. (No, really: seriously.)
Arguing that it's art? That it is in itself valuable to culture as "low art" is? This isn't a question restricted to the UK, and it's one we need to get philosophically astute about pretty fast. So, again: Porn is not the problem — you are.
Whatever it is, analogies to automobile accidents and art, in any sense, is a stretch beyond palatability, and makes this entire discussion look entirely intellectually one-sided. I think such talk is a disservice to the discussion, and maybe porn should be blocked on those grounds alone, for I am quite sure OP's aesthetics are common.