I agree that pro-sex doesn't mean pro-exploitation. The part on pro-sex not meaning pro-degradation deserves some qualification, because what constiutes "degradation" can be pretty subjective. There are a lot of people who are all-too-willing to read consensual BDSM or rough sex (or any number of other sexual acts) as "degrading", even if the receiving party desires the "degrading" act in question.

I think that point 1 is a very important one – there needs to be ways to better insure that everything done in the production of porn is done consensually and that realistic standards of health and safety are met. The details of how exactly to implement this in a global industry where most of the models and actors are in it on a short term basis is the more difficult question. (I also think no matter what you do, there's always going to be an element that claims that there's no way anybody in their right mind could freely choose to do that.)

And point 2 is also an important one, espcially because the feminist branch of the anti-porn movement plays such a shifty game in this regard, claiming to be against censorship, yet supporting legislation that most certainly amounts to such, such as the Dworkin/MacKinnon Anti-Pornography Ordinance or the recent propose British anti-"extreme porn" legislation. An essay by Jensen that should get more publicity "Feminism and Free Expression: Silence and Voice" in the anthology "Freeing the First Amendment" in which he explicitly does come out for removing First Amendment protection from pornography and "hate speech" (which Jensen conflates). You are absolutely right to point out that Jensen blends the theraputic and the political, with the potential for some very harmful outcomes to sexuality, culture, and civil liberties.