I mean, whether or not other people think it is a legitimate issue, or whether or not one agrees with their assessments of it, or think their arguments are valid... they believe it's an issue, so to them, by definition, it's an "issue".
My take is very simple: Consenting Adults. Is everyone involved a consenting adult? Is everyone watching a consenting adult? Then it's not anyone else's business. That goes to my core beliefs about letting people make their own decisions, control their own bodies, decide for themselves about sex and reproduction, etc. The reason it comes up around here, I think, is because unlike other issues of what I consider personal self-determination, like the right of the terminally ill to control their end of life destiny, say, or the drug war, or reproductive choice, or equal rights for GLBT citizens, I think is because there are people whose ideology have led them to believe that this is the one case where "yes, but, unless" applies. The place where it's okay to put an asterisk after choice.
Yes, women should be able to control their bodies, but/unless they decide to have sex in front of a camera. Then they're not really consenting, they don't know what they're doing, they're unable to make up their own minds.
Yes, I'm pro choice*... *as long as I agree with the choice.
It causes friction not just because it bangs up against (and yes, Archer, I'm aware of the phrasing again) the 1st Amendment, but also because it so glaringly conflicts with those areas where there IS wide agreement on the left. Most people on the left, those not involved with the pharma industry or the Drug War/Industrial complex, at least, acknowledge that pot prohibition is a massive failure, and it's probably time to end it. You would be hard pressed to find too many folks who really oppose letting the terminally ill have a pain free exit on their own terms, outside of the religious right.
Yet, as I said, there has been an ideological strain that has convinced some people on the left that censoring depictions of consensual sex acts is a societal good, even necessity. It is, to my mind, a glaring philosophical contradiction with everything I believe progressivism and liberalism are supposed to be about.
Lastly, casey, let me add this: I have made a personal note to myself to try to move away from anything that could be construed as personal name-calling on this board, in an effort to try to relax some of the stress and bad feelings that have been going around lately. If it were me, I might not use the word "prudes" in my op in such a way that anyone HERE might infer that you were talking about them, personally. Obviously, we can't control how people interpret things.. I found out last night that my snap, crackle, pop OP, which was a spoof on the M&M thread- was being taken as a personal attack by some people. 
That said, I can't control how you express yourself, nor do I want to. But for me, while I might believe strongly that prudishness drives some of these agendas, I wouldn't use the label 'prudes'. We can attack the concepts and the opinions without insulting people.
Just my 2 cents.
Edit history
= new reply since forum marked as read