Mail watches porn, just to check it doesn't like it

The Star goes into great deal about the film that Jacqui Smith's husband was apparently watching while she was away. It was Raw Meats 3:

A source in the adult movie industry said: “Raw Meats would be amateur girls rather than models and erotic stars. Customers get a kick out of the girl-next-door quality. That’s what Raw Meats is all about.”

The ad, sorry, story, includes a screen-shot of a couple doing their thing, and a pic of Raw Meats 3 with the Televison X logo clearly visible.

Television X is owned by Portland Enterprises. Portland Enterprise and the Star and Express, are owned by Northern and Shell. Northern and Shell is owned by Richard Desmond.

In other Jacqui Smith related porn news, the Daily Mail runs an article by Olivia Lichtenstein in which our intrepid 'reporter' spends a day watching 'several subscription channels' - just so she can tell everyone how 'tawdry' they are. Funnily enough, most people would know that a programme titled 'Teen Fetish Slags' will be tawdry without having to watch it.

But Lichtenstein soldiers on, going into quite unecessary detail:

a man orders two 'take-away bimbos' over the telephone. They arrive, a specifically requested unmatched pair, one blonde, the other brunette, and under his gaze fondle and undress each other like automatons, mouthing filthy words of encouragement and pleading with him to join in. He does.

See what they're doing here? Telling you every juicy detail , just so they can show how 'tawdry' it is. It's a win-win - they can appear appalled while indulging in cheap titillation.

It goes into astonishing detail about the channels, the films, the subscription rates, and includes screenshots of a three women in bed in the bras with two of them kissing, a woman in a shower and the arses of two women in thongs.

But now the - ahem - 'serious' bit. You know, just so it doesn't seem like the Mail have paid someone to watch porn (imagine if Jonathan Ross had been paid to do that...). So:

After two hours of watching these channels, my conclusion was that these 'films' are degrading, exploitative, overlaid with terrible music and, once the shock has worn off, unutterably dull.

Yes, I totally believe that poor innocent Olivia was shocked. But then a few paragraphs later she says:

The problem with pornography, of course, is that those same degrading acts will soon not be degrading enough. The user has constantly to raise the stakes in order to derive the same thrill. It's no wonder that this kind of porn has been compared to crack cocaine. Pornography is addictive and, as with any addiction, the user's need steadily increases and demands ever more shocking, titillating and fetishistic stimuli.

So porn is both unutterably dull and as addictive as cocaine? Is that even possible? No, of course not, but it gives the Mail the opportunity to claim its little bit of the moral high ground, even after all the prurient detail it has just revealed. She goes on:

this mindless filth tarnishes the way in which men perceive women...women remain sex objects whose principle purpose is the sexual gratification of men

The Mail is appalled at the idea of women being treated like sex objects? So on the day before this article, why did it use this pic of Kelly Brook?
No prizes for answering that.