Feminism and Pornography: Differing Views

The wide availability of pornographic material can be argued to be the main attraction to employment within the industry; a notion anti-porn campaigners often utilise for their argument that pornography exploits women.

This interpretation challenges the belief of feminism who say pornography can empower women. Jason states that “pornography lead men to think that women are not sincere when they utter the word ‘no’” (Stanley1). This finding challenge feminism common assumption that porn empowers women by having them work in something they are getting paid for to get out of poverty. The author also talks

Jacoby states that the people who most support the censorship of pornography are women. These women are often self-proclaimed feminists who ironically support the First Amendment. While criticizing the production of pornography, these feminists attempt to argue that “mainstream” pornography is no different than child porn.

Whilst many disagreements have arisen in feminist discourse over the years, none has been quite as prevalent or divisive as the issue of the commodification of sexuality. There are two central groups in feminist ideology that are divided on this issue, liberal feminism and radical feminism. Liberal feminism is influenced by the ideas and values of liberalism. Thus, these feminists share a contractarian view which places an emphasis on a woman’s ability to make choices for herself and that the selling of one’s sexuality is merely an expression of that choice. Paradoxically, radical feminists believe that because women live in a patriarchal society, the commodification of sexuality can never be a choice or a form of expression. Rather, forms of sexual commodification such as pornography and prostitution just enforce male oppression. This essay will explore these two ideological positions in regard to their divergent definitions of human nature and freedom which has created a division within feminism about the commodification of sexuality.

Pornography is a controversial subject all around the world. Part of its appeal is its taboo nature. It has been argued that pornography is harmful. Porn is an underground market that is more or less legal but is it harmful? An article written by Diana E.H. Russell in “Dangerous Relationships: Pornography, Misogyny, and Rape” argues that it is. Diana E.H. Russell is a sociology professor. She has researched the issue and argues that pornography is profoundly harmful. Professor Russell believes that it inclines men to want to rape women and that it encourages them to act out rape fantasies. However, Michael C. Seto disputes Professor Russell's theory that pornography is harmful. Michael Seto's article, written with

Gail Dines’s book Pornland: How Porn Has Hijacked Our Sexuality (Beacon Press, 2011) is about how porn is affecting our lives and why it's presence is damaging to our sexual freedom. Her point of view is just one point of view but it's very thought provoking and it makes you question a lot of things. A lot of things that you wouldn't generally think of. Some may not agree with her point-of-view because of her “anti-porn” agenda, but in this book Dine makes a fair amount of valid points.

The premise of my argument that one would consider to be most controversial would be the premise that pornography does encourage freedom of speech/expression. Many may object to this because many people specifically feminists such as Catherine Mackinnon and Andrea Dworkin regard pornography as immoral because it is a form of sex discrimination. Other feminists as stated by Garry believe that pornography is a form of hate speech and that it defames women. In Garry’s paper she argues that certain content of pornography violates the moral principle of respecting people and how pornography degrades women as it depicts them as mere sex objects and how it is because of this pornography is morally impermissible. Due to the fact that the conclusion of my argument opposes Garry’s view, I will also discuss what she would say in response to the support of my “controversial” premise.

Anti-porn feminists believe that pornography is humiliating to women and turns them into sexual objects that satisfy men’s sexuality. But McElroy disagree saying that when it is analyzed critically it means nothing. Humans only are the ones known to have sexuality then how can objects have sexuality. McElroy basing on this concludes saying that anti-porn feminists who believes in this are lessening their fellow’s dignity. In her article McElroy continues to disagree with this saying that there is nothing shameful on focusing on woman’s

I interviewed one person on each side of this issue, to get the token opinion that is popular on their side of the issue. On this side is Ursula, an extremely quotable quasi-feminist who makes a strong case for her side.[1] Ursula sums up the feminist argument by saying, "Guys see the idealized sex goddess, how can women compete?" First and foremost feminists argue that the idea of a naked woman in a magazine is degrading to that woman in particular and to women as a whole; Playboy and men's magazines in general make women out to be sex objects (Burstyn, 42). Playboy objectifies women, leaving out the human side (Burstyn, 43). Feminists also say that soft-pornography leads to hard-pornography which can then lead to violent crimes against women. Rick Heibert in his article "A hard line against soft porn" says that psychologists have found that viewing soft-pornography inevitably leads to harder material (par 4). Others would take this a step further and contend that the viewing of violent pornography then leads to an increased likelihood of committing a violent sexual crime (Cramer 202). These articles would present statistical research backing themselves up, more likely than not the Meese Commission will make it in to any feminist critique.

The idea that pornography gives feminists of differing opinions this middle ground that they can meet on and see how to articulate the different desires of feminism and what they want to turn it into is one of the main reasons Catherine Lumby argues that feminists need pornography (par 60). As Lumby writes in “Why Feminists Need Porn,” chapter five of her book Bad Girls, “the notion that you can draw a cause and effect line between fantasy and social practice is disturbing and distasteful to some feminists,” (par 60).

As emphasized in the readings for this week, pornography is now becoming part of the society today. It can be seen all over the internet, magazines, and pop music as well (Paul p. 5). So as what you said, feminists are being divided whether they will become anti-pornography or support pornography and what it does to women’s liberation. Two example of the authors for this week’s readings who have different thoughts about pornography is Segal and Paul. Segal views pornography as a way for women’s liberation, which allows them to become autonomous individual in the society. She argues that pornography lets women become in control of their own sexuality (Lecture notes p. 27). However, Paul does not agree to Segal’s argument and she states that

MacKinnon believes that pornography maintains male-dominated views of sex and is an extension of the patriarchy and thus, from a feminist standpoint, it should be eliminated. First, it should be established that MacKinnon believes that “male dominance is sexual” (315). From that, it can be established that practices such as rape, sexual assault, prostitution, and pornography “express and actualize the

Thesis – Multiple outlooks have been taken on the ethics of pornography, and the means by which it may either negatively influence power in sexuality, or actually provide some sort of social value and worth. These different ethical perspectives display the flaws in the industry and what it represents; yet they also end up proving the fact that it can be modified with positive influence and that pornography is not something to be deemed utterly unethical.

Humanity has struggled with determining the best option to solve their ethical dilemmas that they run into in their life. Analyzing and determining the best option to take can leave an individual lost in faith and building a relationship with God. Building a God foundation in your life will help you in every ethical dilemma that you face. The only way to solve an ethical dilemma with viewing pornography is to view the dilemma according to a Christian worldview and compare different options to solve the ethical dilemma.

MacKinnon argues that pornography defines male treatment of women, and is the clearest demonstration of male dominance. Her perspective is radical, but valuable because it forces one to reexamine his or her view of pornography. She says that, “male power makes authoritative a way of seeing and treating women that when a man looks at a pornographic picture... the viewing is an act of male supremacy” (130). This form of expression dictates the way in which men view women as a class. The uneven distribution of power in this system makes pornography a form of discrimination. “Pornography causes attitudes and behaviors of violence and discrimination that define the treatment and status of half the population” (147). Not only women are subject to this form of oppression. “Pornography is the