— Personally, I always felt most offended by the poor aesthetics of bad erotic films than by the fact that they're representing only the male gaze to pleasure (now what is a "masculine gaze" is another scam, but that's another discussion).
Those anti-pornography feminists see phallic sexuality contaminated by power as primarily violent or perverse (for some of them even the act of penetration is inherent violence against women). If this is true, then that means that women's sexuality is essentially pure, unable to express violence, uncontaminated by power and thus "normal."
As far as I know, women are not beings outside of history. Therefore power is diffused and embodied in every one of their relationships. So, the first thing that troubles me with these feminists is that they do not work at all against the dominant ideas of a whole and "normal" sexuality. Moreover, for many years, anti-pornography feminists have used the hard-core/soft-core distinction to label men's sexuality as pornographic (thus pervert yet powerful) and women's as erotic (therefore pure yet victimised). So, erotic is right and made for women, while porn is wrong and made for men. Well, that's the second problem I have with these feminists: I think women have equally the right to fuck as violently, despotically and nastily as men and that hard-core/soft-core distinction, in the end, only disempowers female sexuality.
To sum up, feminism is a human rights movement demanding equality – in that case, balance to representing erotic pleasure. So, as feminism is not against men, the women who're participating in the erotic art are contributing to equal representation of the erotic pleasure.