Simply James

Second-wave feminism began in the early 1960’s, and the feminists debate broadened to a much wider range of issues, including the workplace, family and sexuality. This wave carried on for approximately twenty years, but in the early 1980’s, the ‘Sex Wars’ began. The ‘Sex Wars’ involved intra-feminist disputes on the topics of sexual activity and pornography, and two key viewpoints were formed. In the main, they have taken either a vehemently anti-pornography position or a strongly anti-censorship position (Ciclitira 2004). The anti-sex movement was spearheaded by the radical feminist Andrea Dworkin, while the pro-sex movement was led by the libertarian feminist Gayle Rubin. The radical feminists believed that pornography promoted the truly obscene idea that sex and the domination of women must be combined (Dworkin 1981), while libertarian feminists believed censorship of porn would repress sexuality and stigmatize sexual minorities (Rubin 2011). What I will argue is that feminists did not have to be rigidly ‘pro-sex’ or ‘anti-sex’, but there is a valid perspective in between the viewpoints. We must reject both the radical-feminist view that patriarchy has stolen our essentially emotional female sexuality and the libertarian-feminist view that sexual repression has denied women erotic pleasure (Ferguson 1984). As well as this I will explore how and why the ‘Sex Wars’ began, evaluate and critique both sides of the argument and discuss the impact of the ‘Sex Wars’ on popular understandings of feminism.

Firstly, I’m going to focus on how and why the ‘Sex Wars’ occurred. As the feminist debate developed throughout the 1970’s, lesbian feminism was at the center of the feminist movement. Yet, as I discussed in the introduction, as time went on, sexuality in general began to dominate the discourse for feminists, not just lesbian sexuality. Included in the discussions and debates were heterosexuality, pornography, sadomasochism, butch/femme roles and sex work (McBride 2008).  A central issue to the feminist debate was pornography, with one side believing contemporary pornography strictly and literally conforms to the root meaning of Greek word porné: the graphic depiction of vile whores, our in our language, sluts (Dworkin 1981). In reaction to this ‘radical’ movement, a ‘pro-sex’ feminism movement was born, with a principle of free speech and ‘a woman’s body, a woman’s right’ (McElroy 2006). The two sides quickly became polarized and thus began the Sex Wars. Violence against women or free speech? At what stage does sex become appropriate and when is the line overstepped? These were the arguments between both sides, but this is where I stand in the middle of these two arguments. Neither side exhausts the possibility of each individual female having a different perspective on sexual pleasure, sexual freedom and danger. A woman’s feeling towards sex is not a communal emotion, hence neither emotions nor physical pleasures can be discussed in a vacuum (Ferguson 1984). To understand this though, we must evaluate and critique the opposing arguments, starting with the ‘pro-censorship’ side.

“There’s no feminist issue that isn’t rooted in the porn problem”, are the words of Feminists Fighting Pornography founder Page Mellish, and these words represent the radical feminists debate. These feminists believed the fact that pornography is widely believed to be “depictions of sex” emphasizes that the value of women as low whores is widespread (Dworkin 1981). This constant portrayal of woman as being submissive and being sexually objectified in pornography has led to the reproduction of inequality and the repatriation of patriarchy in society, or what Christina Hoff Sommers called ‘gender feminism’. This ideology looks at history and sees uninterrupted oppression of women by men and to them, the only feasible explanation is that men and women are separate and antagonistic classes, whose interests necessarily conflict (McElroy 2006). Another aspect of their debate was that pornography was not only portraying but also encouraging rape. The idea of male dominance and the male pleasure was to these feminists normalizing rape. Robin Morgan’s phrase, “pornography is the theory, rape is the practice,” captures the explicit link between production of pornography and violence against women (Cavalier 1996). Catharine MacKinnon hugely supported this idea of pornography manifesting rape in male thinking in her book ‘In Harm’s Way’. This book contains the oral testimony of victims of pornography, spoken on the record for the first time in history. One testimony stated, “These calls are not simply harassing phone calls. It is like someone is reading something out of the pornography books… we can’t get away from it” (Mackinnon, Dworkin 1997). Ideally, the ‘anti-porn’ feminists wanted women to reclaim control over female sexuality by developing concern for their own sexual priorities, and the ideal relationship is between equal, fully consenting partners who are emotionally involved (Ferguson 1984).

The critique to this radical feminist movement is that they overgeneralize pornography, and porn is a lot more diverse than just ‘male dominance’. ‘Pro-censorship’ feminists believe pornography is degrading to women, but ‘degrading’ is a subjective term. Each women has the right to define what is degrading and liberating for herself (McElroy 2006), a view I firmly support. Also there is no clear connection between the consumption of porn and violent male behavior, backed up by the 1983 study of the Metropolitan Toronto Task Force on Violence Against Women.

Opposite to Dworkin and MacKinnon stood the libertarian feminists. This ‘pro-sex’ movement believed the radical feminists were too extreme, and pornography benefits women both personally and politically. It gives women a panoramic view of the world’s sexual possibilities and provides emotional information that textbooks and discussion doesn’t (McElroy 2006).  In response to the critique that radical feminists stigmatize sexual minorities, the ‘pro sex’ feminists believed they should repudiate any theoretical analyses, legal restrictions, or moral judgements that stigmatize sexual minorities and thus restrict the freedom of all (Ferguson 1984). I think Pat Clalifia summed the libertarian debate up perfectly when in his article, ‘Feminism and Sadomasochism’, he wrote, “The participants (of pornography) are enhancing their sexual pleasure, not damaging or imprisoning one another. A sadomasochist is well aware that a role adopted during a scene is not appropriate during other interactions and that a fantasy role is not the sum total of her being” (Califia 1981). What Califia is saying, in my opinion, is that both men and women are smart enough to know, whether it be consciously or sub-consciously, that what goes on in pornography is strictly fantasy, and it’s just work. The more I study the libertarian feminist debate the more I compare it to Karl Marx’s attitude to the arena of work during the rise of capitalism. He believed that the workplace should be a sphere of freedom in which humans realise ‘who they are’, and I think that’s how ‘pro-sex’ feminists look at pornography. Women realizing who they are and what they like. Of course though, these libertarian viewpoints were harshly critiqued.

The first critique of the ‘pro-sex’ debate is that it focuses too much on contradicting the radical feminists debate. Many ‘pro-sex’ feminists are replacing the simplistic theorizing and divisive name-calling of the anti-pornography movement with their own, thereby closing off the very discussion they wish to throw open (Philipson 1984). The libertarian side emphasize pleasure, but like the radical side emphasizing emotion, these feelings are not communal, but individual.

The Sex Wars have had an important role on redefining feminism and pornography. An example of this in modern society is the documentary I studied, ‘Hot Girls Wanted’. This documentary follows the life of porn stars, and Tressa Silguero was one of them. Tressa tries to keep a distinction between erotica and pornography, between work and pleasure. At the start her work was just fun, but when does it become emotion? She is an example of the contradictions between radical and libertarian feminism. It is still a grey area which was over-simplified by both sides. Another impact of the Sex Wars was that radicals who were interested in redefining gender and challenging the basic social order became less prominent as began to work within the dominant structure (Diana 2011). It also caused the confusion of in the interpretation of the definition of human trafficking, due to the opposing feminist views on prostitution (Lui 2011).

To conclude, as I have stated throughout the essay I argue that neither the libertarian nor the radical feminists had the solution to the issue of sexuality. With the radicals focusing on emotion while the libertarians focused on pleasure, neither addressed the fact that these feelings are not subjective. Essentially, we cannot paint everyone with the same brush. As regards to a solution between the two sides, I agree with Ann Ferguson when she writes, “I think we must adopt a transitional feminist sexual morality that distinguishes between basic, risky, and forbidden sexual practices” (Ferguson 1984).