A mature talk about Pornography

Personally I find that there is very little that one could truly label universally "disgusting". Every single person has his/her own different things that turn them on and it's foolish to expect there to be an universal standard.

So when it comes to works of erotica in deviantArt or any other art site, I think the only thing we should demand is for the work to come with a warning label so people who are not into that sort of thing can avoid it. That's I would not object to seeing a woman's vajay-jay (ASIDE: I honestly have a hard time using a word for this. "Pussy" is too informal and "labia" is too medical. I refuse to use the word "vagina" because it does NOT refer to a woman's genitalia, especially not her outer genitalia. Vagina is the birth canal, so you would need a flashlight to see it, it's not something anybody could catch a glimpse of if her panties fall down. While searching for an appropriate replacement, I found this website http://www.ineedanotherwordforvagina.com/words/all/ which somehow helped even less.) dripping wet on the front page. Someone drew it so other people could appreciate it, I don't have a problem with that.

The only sort of pornography I think should REALLY be banned from deviantart or anywhere else is anything truly non-consensual. That includes paedophilia and bestiality, since neither children nor animals can consent to sex in any possible scenario.

But even then there are several degrees of gray areas. Do we judge paedophilia based in your country's local laws about age of consent? Personally I don't think a sexual drawing of a 17-year-old is paedophilic in any way, but it is banned by deviantart standards regardless. 
I also don't think a drawing of two 12-year-old girls kissing is automatically wrong, because in context it can be completely innocent.
Even paintings or pictures of naked children don't have to be pornographic
Take a look at these two from the Victorian era and tell me they are "wrong" somehow
http://ilanapayes.files.wordpress.com/2007/05/julia-margaret-cameron-kids.jpg
http://www.arthistoryarchive.com/arthistory/canadian/images/PaulPeel-After-the-Bath-1890.jpg

When it comes to animals, I'm pretty sure you've heard of "furries". Well, like paedophilia, there are also several degrees to measure it by. Human beings find it sexually arousing when other people are "exotic". This can mean that they are another race, or from another country or simply are different. There are styles of furry art that are simply taking a human being and making it exotic by adding fur or feather and simple animalistic features. However, at the bottom the base is still human, which is why I say the majority of furries are not actually sexually attracted to animals.
For example, take a look at this image
http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-8i9-nmyHYv4/Tl1wCs2JKZI/AAAAAAAAANc/1BCpinVwg-8/s1600/01.jpg

This creation is more human than rabbit. Every single characteristic designed to make her desirable; her breasts, her hips, her small thong, her basic anatomy; are completely human. None of her animal features are sexualized. 

I developed a level of tolerance for fetishes that don't attract me. If it's scat, waterworks, midget, etc. porn; I'm not interested. But I'm not going to rain on the parade of people that DO like it by complaining and trying to get it banned. As long as it's consensual, I just won't look at it.

NEXT TIME (hopefully): a feminist look at porn. Does it really hurt women? In what context does this happen?