The Alternet article is also discussed at Feral Scholar:

Let’s deconstruct that, because it’s important. What he is really saying — listen closely — is that the violence caused by the porn industry to the expendable class of prostituted women used by the industry doesn’t count. What counts is whether porn causes men who consume it to do “real” sexual violence, meaning violence to “respectable” females (presumably white and/or middle class and not officially prostituted). His argument is as nonsensical as saying that the meat packing industry is not a cause of animal suffering because consuming Spam doesn’t necessarily make you beat your dog.

[...]

In other words: men are threatened by feminism, and by women feeling unhappy and dissatisfied with selfish masculinity — please note the clever in-passing patriarchal equation of selfishness with strength and masculinity, w/which any good Randian wingnut would certainly agree — so they escape into fantasies where women are obedient sex dolls who are “driven wild” by whatever men want to do with and to them. But this is not misogynist, dear me no! A less clueless charitable interpretation would be that porn is archetypical revanchist media for an uneasy privileged caste needing to reassure itself that the field hands really do sing happily at their work and find fun and satisfaction in doing whatever Massa tells them to do.