I will disagree. When my partner was attempting to masturbate while I was awake in the other room, it was a deal breaker.
Its a complete rejection, to me. Ymmv.
Umbro is a sportswear company:
I used to think romance was uniquely full of badly written books until I read a few modern thrillers and other genres and nope, there’s just a lot of schlock out there.
I heard this as a podcast and hearing her read it was fun, but still may be of interest.
Anyway. If schlock sells then schlock it shall be. But I doubt schlong will ever be the featured thing to call it! 
So is bad romance fiction cock schlock?
My mother-in-law is a romance writer, and wished that Harlequin would let her use the word “cock”. I think they started a more explicit line at some point where she got to use it.
@a_dudes_thought_s - I am addressing you directly because this may be an urgent health matter - I’m speaking of your physical health. I had a sister who started having interactions with a “demon.” Long story short: she had brain lesions that were causing hallucinations. While her “demon” didn’t kill her, her brain lesions did. I strongly urge you to get an MRI, sooner rather than later - if you wait, your condition might progress (as my sister’s did) to the point when you may not retain enough lucidity to seek medical treatment.
If it turns out you don’t have brain lesions - then I apologize in advance for having inconvenienced you to get a medical test you didn’t need. However, it’s better to be safe than sorry.
Sturgeon’s law applies to erotica like it applies to everything else.
Sturgeon’s law (or Sturgeon’s revelation) is an adage stating “ninety percent of everything is crap”. It was coined by Theodore Sturgeon, an American science fiction author and critic, and was inspired by his observation that, while science fiction was often derided for its low quality by critics, most work in other fields was low-quality too, and so science fiction was no different.
It could be worse. There’s a bunch of older erotica that was written in a style I personally nicknamed “exclamation point porn”.
Because every sentence in the sex scenes! And sometimes! Every! Word! Would end in an exclamation point! It is! Very! Distracting!
The worst thing about romance crappola is its formeliac style.
I say worse, I don’t mind it in Mystery books. Even shitty ones.
As example…I love “The Cat who…” books.
There’s more rooms to go in than the “boudoir” in the Castle.
My sister is a successful soft porn Romance novelist. I hate everyone of her books. Well, at least the ones I gagged through.
They sell like hot cakes.
People, women primarily, love them.
I do not get it.
I’ve read about instrumental measurement of “arousal”, and what passes for arousal in women seems to me to miss what most of us consider the point of arousal.
In men the instrumentation goes around the penis and detects swelling, presumably in preparation for penetration, which seems to me a plausible proxy for arousal.
But in women, the instrumentation detects lubrication, also in preparation for penetration, though as an evolutionary response to help prevent tearing and damage to the vagina. This doesn’t necessarily mean the woman wants penetration, only that she predicts somehow that it may happen. This could include the anticipation of forcible penetration as “arousal”, which seems to me to go way outside the meaning of “arousal” as we often use it. It makes sense that the body would have an evolved response like this to help prevent injury, but it doesn’t make sense (to me) to declare this a proxy for “arousal”.
I don’t believe in sin or demons, and don’t believe consuming (or creating) pornography is immoral per se. I do suspect the industry has some problematic tendencies and should be better regulated legally.
But this study didn’t measure lubrication. It measured erection of the clitoris. 
I agree that there are issues with parts of the porn industry, serious enough that it is evil to consume certain types of porn. (Child porn springs to mind.)
Anyway, to answer the OP’s question, i don’t think porn is inherently evil, but i think certain uses of porn can be unhealthy, and that might have been a problem for the OP.
The great majority of the porn I consume is either written, CGI, or drawn, which does at least neatly avoid any issue with the actors being exploited or abused. No actors means no actors mistreated.
At any rate, if porn is “sinful” then so is having sexual thoughts at all; that’s just providing your own porn with your imagination. The idea that finding sexy things appealing is immoral leads nowhere but to self hatred and misanthropy; something historically demonstrated by puritanical movements of all sorts.
They are very good at turning followers into people who hate everyone, including themselves.
Very well-said there @Der_Trihs
And yet it can still be super illegal if the drawings look like they are underage.
I think that varies by jurisdiction. And also, it’s getting pretty off-topic.
Well it relates to the idea of “sin” … I think many of us would agree with their illegality despite the lack of a victim. Maybe some thought of risk of acting on it otherwise. But some just because of the “wrongness” … for those who think that, related to “sin” in some way?
Which is illogical, and likely destructive to society since it forbids people inclined that way a legal, harmless outlet.
Yes, yes, I know the argument that allowing porn of something “bad” will encourage people to act it out in real life yet despite all the times it’s been claimed reality never actually works out like that.
Boy that’s a strong claim. Never? I don’t know if there is going to be good data on that either way. I wouldn’t know even how to search for it.
Remember “real life” victimization includes being the consumer demand for product that abuses children to create.
Would you exempt the current ultra realistic AI imagery in the same manner? A hyper realistic interactive toy?
Is there a point that still has no definable victim having (yet?) occurred that would cross your line to saying that no definable victim is required; it should be disallowed as simply wrong?
To me this is a circumstance where the burden of proof is to prove the complete safety of allowing it, not on proving its danger.
That’s just a disingenuous demand for a ban, since “complete safety” is impossible.
If a pedophile is arrested for say, interacting with child online. The investigation leads to his collection of child porn. He has a stash of hand drawn children in sexually explicit poses or situations.
Do you think they’re gonna excuse it because it may have kept him from “acting” on his perversion? What about photos? He didn’t take them, the kids are unknown.
Yeah, no he will be charged with every item, as a crime.
He may very well get less sentence, because, well, dumb reasons. But each item in his collection is a crime against a child.
Even the manual artwork. Very few artistic works are painted of no person, if a person is in the art.
Even anime, manga and comic book type art.