If a sexually explicit novel is exploitative one can say so, and say why, without resorting to the use of a puritan vocabulary overladen with emotional connotations. At least in popular usage. Masturbation for Webb is apparently as much a vice as it was for the Victorian quacks. However, I refuse to wholeheartedly enter this debate as long as censorship is aimed almost exclusively at sexual matters. That simply will not do.
Dirty books tend to leave a foul taste in the mouth, and to reinforce feelings of guilt.
But I do not see that this is any concern for courts of law. Censorship laws are nothing is not patronizing. Surely I have the right to inform you that some people insert their fists into the rectums of their partners. This tale has a moral. Well, enough of my random thoughts for now.