no, ake...pornography is NOT all exploitation. Exploitation is a loaded word. The origins OF the word 'pornography' are little understood. It was originally, I believe "writings about prostitution", but soon got confused with 'obscenity', which itself is a subjective term.

To discuss 'exploitation', we have to decide whether that means ALL depiction of images of sexuality and nudity, or merely those where the subjects were tricked, bribed, forced or otherwise asked to do something against their will or better judgement. What if the subject(s) invite and/or create the material? Do we have to conduct long psychological interviews to determine compliance?

Obviously, much evil and depravity has been done to create some porn, and ANY depiction of subjects against their will is to be condemned, but is Playboy 'porn'? Or, because it is pretty tame by today's measure, is it non-porn, but still 'exploitation'? You cannot simply define it for everyone else. It is like 'good' when applied to food....you may like stewed vegetables with lots of onion....I do not. Some folks eat liver...I do not! Tastes vary so widely that on the internet you can find recipes to suit YOUR idea of delicious meals.....and so it is with 'porn'..or 'eroticia'. All attempts to define it and limit it are merely more of King Canute attempting to sweep back the waves on the beach. Yes, real progress has been made to control exploitation of children, and various safeguards exist to filter what you or your children see online, but these only work within a limited framework.

   People WILL decide what they want....some of it will help them; some of it will confuse and/or upset them; but 'value' or lack therof can seldom be imposed on them by others.

If I had a magic button, there are many images and ideas I'd *delete* from human access, but since I don't, I take care of myself and avoid such stuff. There's not a lot more one can do.