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 (part 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).
Feminists, by questioning that line, can find the need to reevaluate their political position and how they relate the issues of feminism to other ideas and movements. The realization that feminists should continuously question their stances on social and political problems hasn't become clear to everyone, but Lumby believes that the debates between feminists over the issue of censorship and pornography (problems that go hand in hand according to the chapter) will bring the realization out in the open (par 60).
Lumby's beliefs and many of her arguments are reiterated in two other articles over the relationship between feminism and porn. In A Feminist Defense of pornography by Wendy McElroy readers can find the different positions in the argument detailed and described, albeit with a bias towards one standing over the others. McElroy's preference and situation agree with Lumby's belief that porn and feminism need each other in a way, but McElroy takes the idea a bit farther by stating that it's not just feminists, but all women that porn benefits (McElroy, par 27).
While McElroy and Lumby have unobstructed views on whether or not porn benefits women and feminists, Natalie Purcell takes a neutral stance in her article Feminism and pornography: Building Sensitive Research and Analytic Approaches. Purcell's neutrality has a point to it, though; she's pointing out the issues all the sides have in their arguments. Certain parts of her article can be seen as support for either side of the problem, but in the overall effect of the work Purcell is just trying to show the faults of both arguments and how they could each become stronger, and how we could "engage in this research [an argument] in more sensitive and responsive ways." (par 5)
One issue that feminists should bring to the open and question is the definition of pornography. Often times anti-porn feminists argue that we can tell what is and isn't porn easily. Yet the definition these feminists use to decide what counts as porn and whether it should be censored from the public applies to many things as Lumby points out in paragraphs nine and twelve. She draws up the movie Siren as an example of how Elle Macpherson's nudity in the movie was widely accepted and went uncontested, but then Lumby points out how Macpherson's shoot for Playboy was more modest than some of the shots in the film yet the photoshoot receives more flack because it's categorized as porn (par 9).
Lumby uses the shoot and film to frame the way anti-porn feminists believe that porn should be easy to spot. She brings up the point for her audience to show them the logic of anti-porn feminists and how that logic doesn't make the most persuasive argument when the audience questions it. The fact that Lumby can make her audience suspicious of the strength of anti-porn arguments makes the audience feel that Lumby knows what she's talking about and respects them enough to point out the flaws in the censorship argument. The audience now sympathizes with Lumby's idea that categorizing porn isn't black and white. Categorizing porn is a pointless endeavor Lumby points out to the audience with her example because "pornography has no essential character" (par 12).
McElroy backs up Lumby's argument over the failings of anti-porn arguments by bringing up how anti-porn feminists argue that anything they've categorized as porn is degrading to women for multiple reasons. This degradation is mainly attributed to the objectification of women and the fact that "Degrading is a subjective term." (McElroy, par 22) McElroy argues to her audience that certain commercials for cleaning supplies in which "women become orgasmic over soapsuds," (par 22) is also degrading to a number of women, herself included.
McElroy points the commercial out to show that everyone differs in opinion over what is and isn't degrading. These differing opinions bring up to her audience that just because one group defines something as offensive doesn't necessarily mean that it is. The audience can then draw on both McElroy's argument over the definition of degrading and Lumby's argument over defining pornography to see that anti-porn protesters are using the same kind of arguments and fallacies to support multiple ideas and make their argument stronger.
At this point in the dissection of the anti-porn argument, we can look to Purcell and her accusation that anti-porn feminists use faulty rhetorical tactics and rely on the audience's emotions too much in their articles and research (Purcell, par 11). Purcell notes that "Taking seriously divergent claims about what pornography is and does must be a part of analyzing the emotional charge and the rhetorical tactics of anti-pornography literature and activism." (par 11) Her position can again be compared with the arguments of McElroy and Lumby over the definitions of words that anti-porn arguments use to back up their claims.
The logical viewpoint that the three authors have in their articles on this issue causes certain members of their audience to agree with them. The audience members who would agree with the logical aspects of the argument are pro-porn feminists that see the faults in the arguments against them, women who value logical proof and fallacies over emotional ones, and anti-porn feminists that are reading the articles to find the flaws in their own arguments to fix them. These audience members are more likely to see the faults in using strict definitions of words with loose interpretations as proof of claims in any kind of argument, including the one over pornography. The proof these logical arguments offer support Lumby's position that porn has no clear definition based on its lack of defining characteristics.
Other than pointing out the lack of defining characteristics with which anti-porn feminists try to categorize pornographic material Lumby also reminds her audience that these traditional feminist critiques on porn are actually strengthening not only the "very system and practices [they] want to abolish," (par 35) but also that some of the ways feminists go about proving that porn victimizes women is the same way other people "threatened abortion rights, sex education programs, ... gay and lesbian rights and the Equal Rights Amendment for women," (par 38).
Lumby points these examples out to show that the anti-porn advocates don't even recognize that they're only helping what they're fighting against, and she uses the argument to convince her audience that the advocates are misguided in their battles. The audience gets to feel smart and that pride that comes from knowing something they think others don't. By letting the readers feel this pride after they've already begun to question the anti-porn feminists, Lumby is ensuring that her audience views her as intelligent enough to use logic to point out the flaws in the advocate's arguments.
The flaws in the arguments are further built upon by the advocate's beliefs that porn is harmful to women because it's considered violence by anti-porn advocates. McElroy points out the flaws in calling porn violence because many times, what anti-porn arguments point out isn't accurate. She states that most women that work in the porn industry do it of their own choice for their own reasons. One of the biggest reasons McElroy has found that women get into the industry is "a love of exhibitionism," (par 26), which directly contradicts the anti-porn arguments that women are either coerced into the industry or that they suffer from some form of Stockholm syndrome.
The anti-porn argument that any woman who willingly allows herself to be degraded by pornography has something wrong with her emotionally is a strong accusation. McElroy points out that the accusation overlooks the chance that women may work in the industry because they enjoy it and the benefits it gives them. She points out to her audience that porn allows women to explore fantasies and desires that could be harmful to them in an uncontrolled situation. By putting their desires and fantasies into controlled situations, women can enjoy and accept urges that might otherwise make them feel guilty over having them. This emotional argument appeals to the audience by showing how porn can benefit women and create healthier views on sex in general (par 28). The fallacies used by McElroy to prove her point also strengthen the narrower interpretation of the argument in Lumby's Bad Girls chapter.
Throughout chapter five of Bad, Girls Lumby frames the arguments and proof that anti-porn advocates use to try to censor pornography in ways to make her audience feel smart and useful. She does this by pointing out flaws in the arguments and organizing them in a comprehensive way so that the audience feels better about their ability to question the issue, and so that they trust her abilities. McElroy's Feminist Defense of porn helps to support the proof of flaws in opposing arguments while also pointing out how the flawed fallacies shown in Lumby's work was used to support other arguments that anti-porn advocates brought up as proof. Purcell further strengthened the arguments on both sides with her analysis by pointing out the lack of logic in many of the arguments and by bringing in a neutral view to the controversy over women, feminism, pornography, and the relationships between them.
Readers interested in how feminism and women benefit from porn and agree with Lumby, McElroy, and Purcell come out of the chapter and supportive articles feeling like the arguments will convince others that pornography has productive uses, and those anti-porn advocates that disagree with Lumby might come away still under the impression that porn should be censored but that there might be a few flaws in their argument. Either way, Lumby, McElroy, and Purcell effectively caught the reader's attention and made their opinions clear in context to all of their audiences.
Works Cited
Lumby, Catherine. Why Feminist Need Porn. Bad Girls: The Media, Sex, and Feminism in the '90s. St. Leonards, NSW: Allen & Unwin, 1997. 94-116. Web. 16 Oct. 2011.
.
McElroy, Wendy. "A Feminist Defense of pornography." Council for Secular Humanism. Web. 29 Oct. 2011.
Purcell, Natalie. "Feminism and pornography: Building Sensitive Research and Analytic Approaches." Electronic Journal of Human Sexuality, 12 (2009). Electronic Journal of Human Sexuality. 11 May 2009. Web. 29 Oct. 2011.
