I don't post much on anti-pornography advocates and their research, as many consider it unreliable (i.e., lacking scientific rigour) and overwhelmingly biased. However, I believe it's still important to acknowledge their work, as it does feature prominently in the debate about access to, and regulation of, pornography. Also, some of their criticisms are valid.
Gail Dines is arguably the leading anti-pornography campaigner and academic of the current generation. Her research and writing is celebrated by anti-pornography advocates, but has also been sharply criticized by many working in the field. The following snippets are from an article about her and her work, published by the Guardian:
"Porn culture doesn't only affect men. It also changes "the way women and girls think about their bodies, their sexuality and their relationships," says Dines. "Every group that has fought for liberation understands that media images are part and parcel of the systematic dehumanisation of an oppressed group . . . The more porn images filter into mainstream culture, the more girls and women are stripped of full human status and reduced to sex objects. This has a terrible effect on girls' sexual identity because it robs them of their own sexual desire."
[...]
"To think that so many men hate women to the degree that they can get aroused by such vile images is quite profound," says Dines. "Pornography is the perfect propaganda piece for patriarchy. In nothing else is their hatred of us quite as clear."
[...]
As a result of her research, Dines believes that pornography is driving men to commit particular acts of violence towards women. "I am not saying that a man reads porn and goes out to rape," she says, "but what I do know is that porn gives permission to its consumers to treat women as they are treated in porn."
The rest of the article, including much more discussion of Gail Dines and her views, can be found here.