Our study didn't really focus on pornography, so I'm not sure that I'm really well positioned to comment. I think the point that my colleague has made about objectification more generally is very well taken, but I don't think that pornography is the single thing we can point to.
One example I can give you from our research was that one of the survivors I interviewed told me about a fraternity-sorority party called a “stop light party”. I don't know if anybody's heard of these or not. Essentially, you wear red, yellow, or green. Green means “Go ahead; do whatever you want to me”, as if consent is not required. Yellow means “I require consent”, which to me is just a completely unintelligible way of presenting consent on campus. Red means “I'm not willing to engage in sexual activity”. To me, that example has always come back as a really clear way of capturing the way consent is understood, particularly among first- and second-year students on university campuses. This is something that you can just willy-nilly throw out, and if people are wearing green they don't need to provide consent; it's just expected that they'll put out whatever's requested of them.
She was also clear to me that the women who were wearing yellow were seen as prudish, whereas certainly the women who were wearing red were just, like, forget it. Only the women who were wearing green were seen as attractive at these fraternity and sorority parties. I find that to be a very sort of jarring, but also very accurate, depiction of the way this kind of objectification works in the cultures on campus.