The icon should say "This porn-meta is Moon Knight approved."
Christianity Today,

Your article, The Transgender Moment, was decent. You still refused to use correct pronouns, but that's not a surprise.

Then you interviewed Alan Chambers about GID, trying to paint him as someone who had "symptoms" in childhood.

I think that's an insta-fail right there. You don't even need to add water.

So, I've been reading bits of Anne Rice's "Erotic Adventures of Sleeping Beauty" series, more out of amusement than any actual desire or possible sexual arousal.

Now, I'm pretty immune to most porn. But it seems I'm especially immune to Anne Rice. The first chapter I finished, which involved top switching, whipping, and other normally kinky stuff, surprised me with how boring it was. There would be two whole pages of supposedly kinky stuff and then four paragraphs of actual sex, which one sentence devoted to the orgasm.

Now this isn't to say that focusing on such kinky stuff is bad, persay. Niche porn will always attract a niche. But this doesn't make it good niche porn. To place it in an analogy: think of touring a cannery: you spend 90% of the time on cans. The intricacies of their construction, the chemical composition of the metal alloy, inks, paper, and glue, how they're put together.

And then 10% is devoted to what goes into the cans.

What's more important, the vessel or the stuff you actually eat? Only a can aficionado cares that much about the construction and composition of cans, but everyone eats what's in cans. And I don't begrudge a can lover their desire to know more about cans, but for a non-can person, it's not interesting but tedious.

So to me the essence of good (and bad-but-enjoyable) porn is in balance. A balance of florid prose for both parties, a balance of perspective from each person, a balance of aspects (foreplay, kink, arousal, orgasm). The worst, most-teeth-grittingly bad written porn is written by men who think about nothing but what's happening to their cock (from one-liner spam e-mails to Literotica stories).

And such cock-porn is funny the first time you read it, but it eventually it becomes tedious. Unless the organ is named something especially creative, I've seen it before and don't care. And once I've read a lascivious description of a whipped bottom, I don't have to read it again. I get the idea. Even for my own kinks, unless the description or aspect of the kink is especially interesting, it's just kink X. I may be mildly interested, but I don't get off on the kink if it's another standard description of said kink.

Also, the book includes a rather detailed description of sex with a woman who had been genitally mutilated that basically said, "Well, if you keep stimulating her vagina, eventually she has to have an orgasm."

Uh, Anne, genital mutilation is never arousing. In fact, it's anti-arousing. And as a note, I do not feel that female partner of mutilated woman is honorable or some kind of hero because she did something that would be painful for aforenamed woman because she just kept going until female partner was satisfied with woman's orgasms.