The problem I see with many arguments, is that it portrays pornography as all a certain way, or all another way.
In my experience, many pornographic films consist of consenting adults performing sex acts on camera. While, undeniably, there are unpleasant aspects to some films, or some sectors of the industry, there is also something to be said for the liberation of women within the industry. (There are also plenty other industries that are more inherently sexist than pornography. Capitalism in and of itself is quite sexist.)
There are certainly plenty of films out there that portray the female in the sexual relationship as the dominant one, and therefore break this dichotomy of male dominance. There's something to be said about a woman taking control of her sexuality -- even if that means that she -chooses- to be submissive. Looking at any pornographic film, the female, whether she is submissive or dominant, is obviously having a good time. Pornography can be said to have a large role in female sexual liberation -- it's okay to have sex, and it's okay to enjoy it.
The argument that pornography is abusive just doesn't make sense to me. Two consenting adults having sex on camera isn't abusive. That's like saying that any time intercourse occurs, someone is being raped. If pornography is abusive, then is any private sexual act abusive? Is intercourse between two consenting adults rape? Where do we draw the line? When the actors and actresses in pornographic films voluntarily perform these acts on camera, is it still exploitation? Or is it people taking control over their sexuality?