Obviously this is one of those recurring themes on Broadsheet, sexual liberation versus societal mores. I doubt these discussions are ever productive, but they seem to be just as irresistible, so here goes:

For what it's worth, I liked what Michael Sullivan had to say. I think this was a regrettable decision, and I think it's reasonable for future employers to question Dominguez's judgment. This doesn't make them fire-and-brimstone neo-fascists.

While it's one thing for Dominquez to explore her sexuality privately it's another thing entirely to do it in front of a Playboy TV camera for anyone with a subscription to see. Her sexuality is a public issue specifically because she wanted it to be public.

Presumably she got the sexual attention she felt she needed, resolved her self-image crisis, got the cash to pay for law school, or whatever.

But, now her future employers HAVE to take this into account, and they must do so in the context of their own public image.

Dominguez is a bright adult woman, thus she understands the lay of the land and understands that she makes decisions for herself against this backdrop. The vast majority of people she will come into contact with disagree that starring in a softcore romp is a healthy or mature avenue for sexual exploration. This is just as much their right. Not to mention it's a pretty reasonable position.

If she doesn't get this, then it's precisely the message about personal responsibility that's not getting through. Maybe we should spend a little more time and energy as a society promoting cautious sexual exploration rather than debating the extremes.

We're not debating what kind of lawyer Ms. Dominguez might make. She made a choice that's way outside the accepted standards of conduct for most employers in her profession. That's just life.

No doubt she might make a bang-up attorney for Hustler.

Broadsheet might want to ask the questions how many women like her jeopardize their future careers to provide masturbation material for millions of strangers, and why would they do that.

...but I think Cary's advice is worthwhile.

If anyone read the Times Science articles on sex yesterday, the recurring theme is that arousal is not a cognitive act. We don't choose what turns us on. At best we respond to it.

However, we also generally only get the tip of the iceberg when it comes to self-awareness, and even this is spun to favor potentially rewarding behavior. You can read an example of recent research on this phenomenon on sciam.com (Scientific American).

That's where porn is problematic, in my opinion. Biologically-speaking it is so basically and powerfully rewarding. We literally wouldn't be here today if our ancestors didn't get turned on by the sight and sounds of sex. (It's important to note that porn can't deliver the feel or smell, a shortcoming to some, a safety to others. Don't get too comfortable. Technology always delivers.) And presumably we've been selected from among the lines of those who liked it the most.

So you can argue for a love of movies or art as being similarly addictive, but neither of these, not even alcohol, plays so strongly or directly to our evolutionary heritage. The *average* adult male thinks about sex how many times a day? The average adult female? The average TV show references it how many times? The average advertisement? and on and on. Seems to me we're mostly just functioning sexaholics.

In fact, we don't even think about food as much as we do about sex. Rather, we eat our fill and then go on with our day. I've heard male lab rats will continue to go at it until they collapse as long as they have a fresh supply of partners. And if you've never had several willing partners together in a single room, I can tell you that's pretty much been my experience, too. You start to wonder where the 'off' switch is.

So what is this desire that's nearest to us? Is it what's most essentially human, or just a natural outgrowth of the logic of evolution now available to us for review? In other words, can we get free of it long enough to take a good look at it? Probably not. The 24/7 availability of porn certainly doesn't help.

I think those of us on these pages who put their faith in free choice harbor naive hopes about the freedom of our choices. So when Cary talks about porn as an invader, I'm inclined to agree with him. The trick is, we've got two feet for walking. One's up in the air while one's on the ground. What's closest to us at one time can be an invader at another.