Well, here is a take on it that is pretty negative:
http://www.theverge.com/2014/9/1/6092769/creeps
I think if you think very hard and ethically about porn and sex work in general then the idea of consent becomes very important. This is why it isn't cool to look at child porn. Children cannot give consent. You get sort of a grey area around consent in cases like that of Traci Lords. She seemed to be able to consent, but you have to consider other factors. She was a runaway. A man sort of pushed her into it. She was underage. Ultimately she wasn't a consenting adult so I believe it is fair that her stuff is banned and I want no part of it. I'm old enough to have been around and seen it before her true age was discovered so I'm well aware of how difficult it is to look away from her.
Therefore, a moral absolute exists that says for porn to be cool, it has to have the consent of the subject of the porn. These actresses gave consent when they took or had taken these photos,
but only to those who they chose to share the nude photos with. There for in an absolute sense, this isn't cool, and we really shouldn't be looking at these pics.
When Erin Andrews got spied on, I refused to look at the photos. I felt very strongly that her privacy had been violated and I wouldn't look. But I like women with curves, and Erin Andrews doesn't do much for me. So it wasn't really challenging.
My wife will tell you that my biggest celebrity crush is JLaw, and has been for a long time. She actually gave me the Vanity Fair with her in it awhile ago which has a provocative photo of JLaw bending over a car, wearing tight pants. When I saw these pictures were out, I went and looked them up immediately. I rationalized the moral absolute with the piece of moral relativism we're all using - These women were careless and not only took nude images of themselves but allowed them to be uploaded to a remote server. Unfortunately, that's little different than saying 15 year old Traci consented to doing porn - it's blaming the victim.
If you can, probably you should steer clear. If you can't, well, try to just enjoy them from a curiosity standpoint and leave it at that - keep your dick in your pants, she didn't make these pictures for you to jizz over. I guess I'm arguing a bit Calvinistically, we're depraved and if this isn't forbidden fruit, I don't know what is.
The issue of consent is just such a slippery slope in the porn business. How many women take their clothes off to make rent? To feed their kids? Are they really consenting? I think you have to do a compare and contrast. If you look at someone like Nina Hartley, she clearly loves the business, loves the attention, she wants you to enjoy her porn, she made it for you. JLaw made her 'porn' for herself or her boyfriend or girlfriend and not for you, and I really think you're crossing a line if you go there. I guess I'm arguing that while morality may be absolute, there are degrees of sin, of trespass. I say this with an eye towards personal integrity, not of religious righteousness.