The word whore is incomprehensible unless one is immersed in the lexicon of male domination.  Men have created the group, the type, the concept, the epithet, the insult, the industry, the trade, the commodity, the reality of woman as whore.
Another quote of the day?  You betcha.  Our culture is toxically pornsick and Andrea Dworkin realized that in 1979.  1979!!  So talk about prescience –

Contemporary pornography strictly and literally conforms to the word’s root meaning: the graphic depiction of vile whores, or, in other language, sluts, cows (as in sexual cattle, sexual chattel), cunts. 

   The word has not changed its meaning and the genre is not misnamed.  The only change in the meaning of the word is with respect to its second part, graphos: now there are cameras – there is still photography, film and video.  The method of graphic depiction have increased in number and in kind: the content is the same; the meaning is the same; the purpose is the same; the status of the women depicted is the same; the sexuality of the women depicted is the same; the value of the women is the same. 

[…]

   The word pornography does not have any other meaning that the one cited here, the graphic depiction of the lowest whores.  Whores exist to serve men sexually.  Whores only exist within a framework of male sexual domination.  Indeed, outside that framework, the notion of whores would be absurd and the usage of women as whores would be impossible.
   
   Woman as whore exists within the objective and real system of male sexual domination.  The pornography itself is objective and real and central to the male sexual system.  The valuation of women’s sexuality in pornography is objective and real because women are so regarded and valued.  The force depicted in pornography is objective and real because force is so used against women.     The debasing of women depicted in pornography and intrinsic to it is objective and real in that women are also debased.  The uses of women depicted in pornography are objective and real because women are so used.

[…]

The definition of women articulated systematically and consistently in pornography is objective and real in that real women exist within and must live with constant reference to the boundaries of this definition.     The fact that pornography is widely believed to be “sexual representations” or “depictions of sex” emphasizes only that the valuation of women as low whores is widespread and that the sexuality of women is perceived as low and whorish in and of itself.  The fact that pornography is widely believed to be “depictions of the erotic” means only that debasing of women is held to be the real pleasure of sex.  As Kate Millett wrote, women’s sexuality is reduced to the one essential: “cunt… our essence, our offense”.    

The idea that pornography is “dirty” originates in the conviction that the sexuality of women is dirty and is actually portrayed in pornography; that women’s bodies (especially women’s genitals) are dirty and lewd in themselves.  Pornography does not, as some claim, refute the idea that female sexuality is dirty: instead, pornography embodies and exploits this idea; pornography sells and promotes it.

 

 
-Andrea Dworkin:Pornography – Men Possessing Women. pp. 200-201