My rating of this book as one of "the worst" does not refer to its academic prowess. The footnotes are all there, and the style is passionate and intense, typical of most anti-pornographers' heady intellectual indictments of one genre of media for all our gender woes. It is the worst, to me, because it is the ultimate gathering of the forces of illogic which drive the anti-pornography forces. The most extreme example of how far these people will go to attempt to prove their points comes in Itzin's own contribution, in which she relates the story of a South-African farm worker who was murdered for the amusement of the farm owner's dinner guests. Because pictures of the gruesome undertaking were shot and passed around, Itzin compares these pictures to pornography such as centerfolds. Surely this would enrage the family of the murdered man to hear his death trivialized in this way. Itzin goes on to claim that the "free speech" defenses of pornography imply that such photos (of Kasire's death and of naked women, who supposedly could not willingly choose to pose so graphically) are not only comparable, but that the distribution of both are similar crimes. Never mind that Marcia Pally has pointed out that if photos and descriptions of a rape are destroyed, the rape remains while the evidence does not. Never mind that the horrific descriptions of graphic pornography included in this book would be illegal themselves under such laws as the Proposed Minneapolis Pornography Ordinance, written by MacKinnon, who seems to be Itzin's mentor and contributed to this collection of essays. Never mind that Nadine Strossen has pointed out that women do not experience any particular freedom from rape or domination in cultures in which the production of pornography is a punishable offense. Never mind logic when we can tell by looking at pornography that it's nasty. Why not stigmatize women even more by pointing out that they're too helpless and deluded to make their own choices about whether to read or participate in pornography--good God, do these creatures even have enough sense to VOTE? I think that at least some of these anti-pornography crusaders are more obsessed with porn than any of the porn "addicts" they describe. True feminists would be out helping sex workers to get better working conditions rather than marginalizing them in the way to an even greater extent. This anti-pornography view is not "radical;" it conforms to the traditional perception of women as requiring virtue in order to lead meaningful lives. It seems to me that they ought to be attacking the concept of female virtue (oh, fate worse than death!) rather than the existence of male sexuality!