People currently keen on censoring other people's access to smut and sex include the Chinese, the Iranians, the Saudi Arabians and some utter morons in the US Senate. Oh and the state of Alabama where dildos are only available "for a bona fide medical, scientific, educational, legislative, judicial or law enforcement purpose."
If conservative Republicans wonder why people who otherwise sympathise with them somethimes believe they are fundamentalist wingnuts then this would be why. Alabama argued its sex-toy ban " ... and related orgasm stimulating paraphernalia is rationally related to a legitimate legislative interest in discouraging prurient interests in autonomous sex." And that "it is enough for a legislature to reasonably believe that commerce in the pursuit of orgasms by artificial means for their own sake is detrimental to the health and morality of the State."
In much the same way Senator Stevens seems to think that we should not be able to pay to watch naked ladies. This is, to put it mildly, a crusade that is destined to fail. I'd say that the fact that just about the only guaranteed way to make money out of a new technology is to sell smut using it is a fairly major hint that smut is popular. The fact that about 50% of all jokes involve sex is another.
Unlike alcohol, tobacco and numerous other drugs, legal and illegal, "autonomous sex" gives millions pleasure and has no obvious harmful side-effects. Apart from an obscure desire to stop people having fun what possible reason can there be for legislating against smut in private? Next thing you know the US Senate will be recommending that women wear "modest clothing". As 3martini puts it
We obviously need a new bumpersticker: "I'm an adult. I watch cable. And I vote."