Rhetorical Analysis

Susan Jacoby's essay represents her unique image as a “First Amendment Junkie” and what it means for her in society of her times. Her belief that the First Amendment must be carried on at all costs without regarding the content, which in this case she expresses particularly in pornography. Jacoby states that allowing censorship of pornography could open up the possibilities of censoring other things if so, what could be those other things? Could we agree with her? Had we censored pornography back in the 70's would we as women be where we are now? After analyzing Jacoby's article, She does not excuse or deny that pornography can be or is vulgar,

New York Times writer, Susan Jacoby, offers a compelling argument against stricter enforcement of pornographic censorship. In support of first amendment rights, she provides a convicting thesis; the government does not encompass the authority to place any restrictions on free speech or the expression of ideas. While many feminists argue that porn poses a greater threat to women than free speech poses to any other group, she contends the marching of neo-Nazis creates similar or greater animosity in survivors of the Holocaust. Furthermore, the argument about child pornography is not valid because it is an issue of abuse of power, rather than of obscenity. Feminists desire to use the state's power to censor, instead of enacting their own responsibility

The feminist movement is thought to be the drive to end women’s oppression, be it a biological woman or an individual who identifies as a woman. However, many feminists have varying ideas when it comes to women in the sex industry. In today’s society we are taught to look down on sex and to act as if it is something to be ashamed of. Anti-porn feminists believe that pornography degrades women, can lead to violence against women, and that the women involved in pornography are mentally damaged in some way that they can not give actual consent to take part.

In the article Let’s Put Pornography Back in the Closet, the writer tries to identify and define what pornography and obscenity is. According to the text, feminists believe that pornography is anything that aims to cause harm to the image of what it means to be a woman. It also includes any source that depicts the female body being harmed in any way to please the viewer’s sexual fantasies. Brownmiller adds to the feminist definition by stating that when any person is being degraded or humiliated for the purpose of fulfilling sexual needs it should also be classified as pornography and obscenity. Along with her definitions for pornography and obscenity, the writer also identifies the First Amendment and how it relates to her topic. The

As a form of media to be consumed, pornography ranks high on the controversy charts. Constance Penley, Celine Parrenas Shimizu, Mireille Milller-Young, and Tristan Taormino talk about the importance of pro-porn feminism and how anti-porn feminist’s beliefs can in fact be repressive towards the rights of women (and everyone).

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

This essay will answer whether pornography should be prohibitable within Millian liberalism by explaining the debate between Richards, Feinberg and MacKinnon/Brownmiller.

Humans are adverse to change and it is a law of nature to follow the principle of least effort. Things run more smoothly when a routine is implemented and results are more consistent with a pattern. This is where we get our cultural and societal norms; a majority of people deems a form of thinking and acting as acceptable. Society is built around these accepted forms of operating and thus our institutions reflect the values of society. When those values are oppressive or degrading to a certain class of citizens, they not only face personal discrimination but they are surrounded by oppression from the entire system. While often-considered taboo, pornography is an aspect of modern society that seems to be the most relevant to female abuse. Andrea Dworkin sums up her thoughts on “porn culture” by saying, “One can know everything and still somewhere inside refuse to believe that the personal, social, culturally sanctioned violence against women is unlimited, unpredictable, pervasive, constant, ruthless, and happily and unselfconsciously sadistic” (130). Cindy Jenefsky further analyzes Dworkin’s work and says, “Within the governing logic of ‘woman as whore’ anything done to women is presented as sex in pornography, despite the absurdity or violence of the act” (134). Pornography depicts the beautiful act of sex and love making as a violent, demeaning action for women and wraps it up in a neat bow to sell to us. Using words like “consent” and “free speech” society facilitates

Freedom of speech is a constitutional right that many individuals benefit from. While this clause exists within the laws of the land, it is a source of constant debates. It is expressed that free speech overrides any form of restriction except whenever it is intended to harm another individual. The line between restriction and freedom is hazy regarding how much freedom is sufficient to warrant restriction. John Stuart Mill argues that “we are never justified in silencing the expression of an opinion, even if the view is patently false. We can, however, control when and how someone expresses an opinion” (LaFollette 346). This indicates that people should be permitted to express themselves in whatever language or form in which they wish. Pornography often comes up in conversations involving freedom of speech, as one of the rights to which people should be allowed. Bristol argues that pornography harms women in the sense that it “glorifies rape of and violence towards women” (LaFollette 346). This opinion bifurcates people into two types: those who feel that pornography should be legalized as it is a part of free speech and those such as Bristol who feel otherwise. Speech and expression entails all forms of action and verbal talk that is meant to raise one’s concerns regarding a particular issue, and should be treated with high and unrestricted regard. The exception includes cases in which they are meant to cause harm to other individual, whether in the short or

Producing and distributing pornography has been a controversial issue from the beginning of its existence. Some people might see pornography as a piece of entertainment and argue it is harmless, while other people, especially the feminists, argue that it is harmful to the society where it objectifies women as a “pleasure relief toy” for men. From a contractualist point of view, pornography is considered as immoral for its dehumanizing, degrading, and sexist representations. Therefore, pornography should not be distributed out the world.

Pornography is a complex topic. Anti-pornography feminists claimed that pornography may cause serious problem such as gender inequality thus opposed its existence while other feminists may disagree with those claims from disagreeing with one specific argument to claiming the benefit of pornography (Saul, 2003). Historically, women are excluded from the pornography consumer sitting. However, some people began to notice the demand of women in sexual fantasy space in this century. Some published works are described as designed ‘for women’ (Sonnet,1999). Vadas (2005) claimed that pornography’s manufacture-for-use harms women because it creates women who are not necessarily persons. In other words, objectification harms women because it makes women’s personhood become not necessary. However, Vadas’s claim is not enough to oppose pornography. I will, firstly, explain Vadas’s claim. Then I will argue that Vadas’s claim only focuses on the heterosexual use of pornography for men in specific. This kind of focus totally based on the male dominate view and overlook other kinds of pornography and their possible benefit.

The first and most common argument against the censorship of pornography is freedom of expression. If a consenting adults decides to engage in pornographic material be it for

Pornography was created for the use of sexual arousal as a means of exploring sexuality, by making use of visual stimuli’s to achieve a state of stimulation. The incentives being employed in pornography are sexually explicit material of erotic body parts and the performance of sexual activities. Over time, the intentions of pornography have changed and have become more aggressive, with the notion of “this is what sex is really like” and that women also find it “pleasurable”. There have been various contrasting views on pornography, whether it is a healthy form of exploring one’s sexuality, or an immoral act that takes advantage of women, as well as to further oppress women and girls within society. Some pro-sex activists believe and have argued that porn is beneficial towards a person’s sexual orientation, along with empowering women. They also hold the idea that women have a right to explore their sexuality however they see fit; women should not be ashamed of their sexual desires and they also support those who make it their choice to work in the sex industry. Moreover, pro-sex feminists fight for the rights and protection of women within the industry, such as benefits for healthcare, income, insurance, employee safety, etc. However, in another point of view, anti-porn feminists disagree with the idea that pornography is empowering, instead it is contemplated as harmful, violent, artificial, and domineering. Women who work in the sex industry are victims and subjugated to

(57) Although, strongly agreeing that a grey area covers definition of what art is, how a person should behave; actions and manners, has a strong impact in our society. Nevertheless, American’s should not have to worry about who or who does not feel insulted by what they do in the privacy of their own home. What one views as entertainment another may have a different opinion. Watching, reading, or listening to pornography is no different than watching, reading or listening to religious material in one’s home. It is a personal choice. Like with every other type of controversial material common sense should be practice. If it is not a private home where adult content is being shared or discussed and there are children present adults should be respectful and censor on their own what to expose them to and what to protect them from. Returning back to the first Amendment. I strongly feel it is our right as American’s to express our freedom or to allow others to do so as they please. Everyone is free to disagree but we cannot decide what is right for another person solely on our own personal emotions. It should be the head of house to decide what is allowed in their own home not the Government. Jacobi makes a valid point when she says feminist are pro-censorship because they want the Government to intervene and create laws to get their own point access for personal gratification.

Another issue in this controversy is individual rights. Women's interests are at the top of the list. McEntee suggests, "Studies indicate that porn addicts are 40 percent more likely to commit a sex ctime than non-addicts..."(174). This quote could have been one of many quotes used by pro-censorship activists. Their biggest stronghold on censorship is the emotional claim they make for the protection of women. If abuse would stop because of the censorship of pornography, then by all means, censor pomography. This