oh puhleeze. Well practiced.
You sound exactly like the analysis-paralysis faux intellectual liberalism (blah blah woof woof)that is undermining this country--try this:
Apply some STARK common sense!
Pornography, (NOT NUDITY..there is a difference, got that?) Pornography--imagery that seeks to humiliate, degrade, incite agression/exploitation toward the most intimate and personal aspects of a person's being (usually a female) for the tawdry pleasure of another is anti-empathetic.
That leads to dehumanization, that leads to disposable people, souless 'using', and inevitably cultural breakdown.
If you are a systemic thinkewr at all, this is patently obvious.
Nothing AT ALL positive about porn. The real deleterious fallout from it are legion--I have friends that have left porn addicted husbands that have become virtual pod people (porn zombies) and are disinterested in anything but the most extreme sexual antics--increasingly focused on the degrading stuff.
But you'd have to distance yourself from your habit in order to see the true face of your much coveted pornography.
Then why does the article consider Victoria Secret to be porn? There is no nudity and doesn't meet any of your other criteria either.