Feminist Pro-Porn During Sex Wars

Introduction

Feminist Sex Wars of 1970s and 1980s were acrimonious debates about a number of issues relating to sex, and the role of women in this context. In the debate that was uniquely feminist in nature, the focus was on various issues about sex and how different members of the society viewed it. One of the main issues was pornography and how it impacted on the fight for equality in the society.

The anti-porn feminists argued strongly against porn. To this group, pornography portrayed women as objects for sexual gratification for men. It takes away the dignity from women, leaving them empty. On the other hand, the pro-porn feminists held that, pornography did not have any negative connotation about women. They argue that the actors are consenting adult men and women who believe that what they are doing is morally right.

According to Martindaleⁱ, the pro-porn feminists were opposed to the idea of the anti-porn feminists that women should avoid exposing their privacy before the camera. This was seen by the pro-porn feminist as an oppressive approach of dealing with the issue.

In the current society, women, just like men, should be allowed to express their sexual orientation without any prejudice. This is one of the ways of empowering women. For this reason, pornography should not be viewed from a partial angle of just looking at the female actress. It should be taken from a holistic form where the analysis should focus on both male and female actors.

Both are involved in the industry, and it would only be fair to analyse the industry by addressing this fact. Giving a biased focus on men gives the impression that women are still the weaker sex than men in the society. This is what the pro-porn feminists were opposed to in this war.

They argued that both parties are equal and that if the anti-porn feminists thought that women in the pornographic films are used as objects, then they should show maturity in the fight for equity by defending the men in those films as well. In this research, the focus will be on feminists who were pro-porn during the sex wars in the 1970s and 1980s.

Feminist Sex Wars

According to Jeffreysⁱⁱ, the feminist sex war was one of the unique revolutionary debates that had the main players as women. Men played a partial role in these debates, preferring to let women fight their own battle. This scholar says that there was a growing discomfort among many women about the issue of sexuality.

The film titled ‘Snuff’ which was produced in 1976 sparked the public debate on the role of women in the society, and the effects of pornographic films. Andrea Dworkin was one of the pioneers of this debate. She was concerned about the perception that the society, especially men, had towards women.

To her, women were seen as objects meant to offer sexual gratification to men. She argued that this was not only demonstrated in prostitution that was common in New York and various parts of the world, but also in pornographic films. It was a concern to her that the government was ignoring the issue of pornography as it was gaining popularity in the society.

When this debate started, many thought that it would be a revolutionary debate that would pitch women on one side, and men on the other side. Andrea Dworkin was able to convince women that pornography was wrong. She traversed the country and organised public rallies to denounce it. She argued that, pornography was the main factor that led to increased cases of rape in the country.

She was able to get the backing from other staunch human rights activists such as Ellen Willis, Susan Griffin, and Kathleen Barry. It is strange that Kathy Acker and Susie Bright were some of the followers of the anti-porn feminism during its early days. Andrea was seen as a hero who opened a topic that no one had dared talk about, and most women were in support of her efforts.

In the early 1980s, there seemed to be a shift of ideology from among some of the followers of Andrea. Led by Susie Bright, a section of women started approaching this debate from a different point of view. While the anti-porn crusaders used public forums such as rallies to champion for the crimination of pornography in the country, a new outfit that was pro-porn took a scholarly approach.

They wrote books and articles in the newspapers criticising the ideology of the anti-porn crusaders. Susie was particularly concerned of the approach that anti-porn crusaders had taken about issues of pornography and commercial sex workers. According to her, the sex workers went to the streets out of their own free will to earn a livingⁱⁱⁱ.

Their concern is to offer service to willing people and get paid out of this, just like a painter or a gardener. The claim that this was a patriarchal-motivated act was, therefore, not convincing to her. Similarly, she believed that, pornography was offering women the opportunity to get liberation when talking about the issue of sexuality.

Women, just like men, should be allowed to enjoy sex and express their views freely without feeling intimidated. Criticising women who act in pornographic films and ignoring the fact that men are also part of the action is unfair to women. It is a clear demonstration that this group feels that women are lesser beings when compared to men.

Similarly, appearing to defend women who act in these films and ignoring that men are also part of the action is unfair to women. This is so because it emphasises the belief in the society that women are weak and need a constant protection.

To Susie, this was wrong, and demeaning to women that the pro-porn activists claimed to protect. It would be important to focus on the events that took place in this war in order to understand how the pro-porn feminists fought to make their voice be heard and their contributions be appreciated in this debate.

Samois

Samois was the earliest pro-porn feminist group to be started in the United States in 1977. It gave rise to what would be called feminist war because till then, the war against pornography and prostitution seemed to be a fight between men and women. However, this group of lesbians came out to strongly oppose the arguments put forth by the anti-porn activists.

One factor that brought members of this group together was that they were lesbians. They analysed principles laid by the anti-porn activists and realised that their practice was part of what was criticised by this group. This made them feel outsiders to the movement. According to Nestle^iv, the name Samois was taken from a story titled ‘Story of O’ where one of the main characters was a lesbian.

The founders of Saimos were convinced that women deserve to be given the right to define their sexual orientation. They argued that men were living in a free world where no one questioned their choices. However, this was different when the issue concerns women. The society still had the belief that women should be closely controlled, and this denied them the liberty to make any choices.

In particular, this group was determined to fight for the rights of the lesbians as they realised that the arguments of the anti-porn feminists were against their freedom.

It is important to note that this group was not very successful because it was the first organisation that was coming out publicly in support of pornography and prostitution in the society. Most of their contributions were made in the print media, avoiding public rallies for fear of a possible attack by the extremists.

The group was criticised by the anti-porn feminists, especially the Women against Violence in Pornography and Media. They were seen as a thorn in the flesh, fighting against the principles that were viewed as acceptable by women. Gayle Rubin and Pat Califia were some of the founders of this group. This organisation only lasted for six years, and in 1983, it split up to various smaller groups.

The split was caused by infighting among members who disagreed on some of the fundamental principles. For instance, while all members of agreed on the need to fight for the rights of lesbians in the society, a section were opposed to violence in pornography, a view that was shared by the anti-porn feminists. The disagreements led to the split of the organisation in 1983, with members forming realignments based on their personal principles.

One of the biggest groups formed after the split was The Outcasts which lasted until 1997, later changing its name to The Exiles. This new group was pro-porn, arguing that the parties involved in pornography are consenting adults. Some of the members of this group published articles and books in support of their view towards this philosophical war.

Lesbian Sex Mafia

In 1981, a sex-positive feminist Dorothy Allison founded a group she named Lesbian Sex Mafia^v. She was concerned of the criticism that the lesbians, bisexuals, transsexual, and sexual women were facing in New York. They were forced to live in fear of possible attacks from the anti-porn feminists.

Most of them were forced to hide their sexual orientation because of the momentum that the anti-sex feminists had gained in this state. According to Allison, the anti-porn feminists were rigid minded, with principles that belittled women they claimed to protect. In one of her publications, Allison claimed that men had thrived in the field of sexuality as they were free to express themselves and decide on the sexual orientation.

On the other hand, women have lived in a society where they are expected to be dormant when it comes to issues of sexuality. They are supposed to be recipients and not initiators. To Allison, this era was long gone, and it was the right time to allow women to make the decision about their own sexuality, a freedom that was enjoyed by men.

She believed that controlling women sexuality in any way was the equivalent of taking power away from women and handing it over to men. This is contrary to the belief of the pro-porn feminists who believed that their principles centred on empowering women.

Some of the principles that this organisation strongly supported included fantasy role playing, fetishes, sadomasochism, unrestrained sexual expressions, and alternate gender identities. It is important to note that some of these principles were strongly opposed by the anti-porn feminists formed the basis of this organisation.

For instance, this organisation strongly supported sadomasochism as they considered it a practiced that allowed women to express themselves in various forms as long as they were not forced into the act. However, the anti-porn feminists considered this one of the worst acts that belittled women and made them be seen as objects of pleasure for men. This was a major point of disagreement among these two warring parties.

According to Meika^vi, while one party saw this as a demonstration that women were in bondage and used the way men desired, the other section felt that this was another form of expression for women. Another fundamental disagreement between Lesbian Sex Mafia and the anti-porn feminists was on alternate gender identities.

The anti-porn feminists were conservatives who believed that women shall remain women and they should be proud of this fact when expressing their sexuality. On the other hand, the Lesbian Sex Mafia believed that women could alternate gender identity when expressing their sexuality as this formed the basis of lesbianism.

According to this group, for one to be a lesbian, she must have a feeling that she is a man in her sexual orientation, and this will make men unattractive to her. She will view men to be of her same gender. For this reason, she will be attracted to other women. This essentially means that there is an alternation of gender identity. Lastly, these two groups largely differed on their view of unrestricted sexual expression.

The two groups claimed that they supported unrestricted sexual expression of women. To the anti-porn feminists, women should be respected, and be allowed to make their own choices on the people they would want to be intimate with in their lives. Their romantic lives should not be subject to filming because the pleasure generated from the intimacy should be enjoyed by the two parties, and not a third party.

They should not be used as the objects of sexuality by men who may be interested in funny exploration of the body of women. This is contrary to the view held by the Lesbian Sex Mafia. To this group, women should be granted total freedom to express their sexuality. Those who wish to act in pornography should not be restricted simply because they are women.

Women who are interested in watching pornographic should be given the liberty to do so because men have never been restricted from such films. The group also argued that women should not be restricted in their dressing code, something that anti-porn feminist was very critical about.

The Mafia sought to give total liberation to women, handing them the power to choose their personality in as far as sexuality was concerned. This organisation remained very strong during the feminist sex war, especially due to its liberal approach to various issues of sexuality.

Membership was open to women aged 18 years and above. The group would organise play parties where members would watch erotic movies or practical plays by some of the members. They would also sell sex toys to its members or other parties that visited their dungeons.

This was seen as an open defiance to the moralist approach taken by the anti-porn feminists, a fact that that intensified the war. Their act received massive criticism, especially in some of the rallies in New York organised by Andrea Dworkin. They were seen to be the force that was acting against the right course that would liberate women from the bondage.

The group was bringing a new approach to the war against pornography and male dominance in the area of sexuality. Women were now doing what Dworkin and her movement had associated men with, and the group had a substantial following. This was seen as a betrayal to the women in the society according to Dworkin.

While they were busy fighting for some of these vices from being committed by men to women, a section of women were not committing the same acts to fellow women, and publicly justifying their course. Dworkin and her movement realised that the real enemy in their fight for liberation was not men, but fellow women.

On the other hand, the pro-porn feminists viewed the anti-porn feminists as the real enemies of the fight for their total liberation. Herbert says that, the development of these two strong factions in this debate made men completely withdraw from the war to let the women find the course they thought was the best for all.

In fact, the only parties that joined in the battle were the pornographic film producers and religious leaders because of their vested interests. The research by Nestle shows that this group still exists in New York and various parts of the United States, and it has held to its initial principles so dearly.

Feminists against Censorship

The feminist war was not just fought in the United States. It was also experienced in Europe, especially in the United Kingdom. According to Meika, unlike the United States that was seen to be more liberal, the United Kingdom had strict laws concerning possession and use of pornographic materials in the society.

This is very different from what was the case in the United States. In the U.S., the law was defining production and usage of pornographic materials only focused on individuals who were below the age of 18 years. To adults, there was no censorship to the materials, and this was what anti-porn feminists were fighting against. They wanted clearly defined laws that would help regulate the industry.

As the feminist revolution swept across the Europe, British women realised that they were unfairly treated by the law that largely favoured men. It was illegal to be in possession of pornographic materials, but this law seemed only applicable on women. The majority of consumers of pornographic materials were men, but the most of those who were prosecuted for this crime were women.

The law gave powers to the Queen of England to confiscate any pornographic materials found within the kingdom, but this law was unfairly applied. It was a common knowledge in the 1980s that the number of gays in the country was higher than that of lesbians. They also went public over their sexual orientation quite often than the lesbians who still feared stigmatisation from members of the society.

This meant that only a small fraction of the smaller population of lesbians was easy to identify in this society during this time. However, it was strange that the police rarely raided homes of the gays to look for the pornographic materials. This meant that women were targeted in such raids simply because they were women.

To fight what they considered social injustice against female sexual orientation and freedom, a group of scholars, lesbians, and their sympathisers started Feminist against Censorship in 1989. This was a network of women that were focused on what they viewed as social injustice directed towards women in the society.

The network was spearheaded by Roz Kaveney and Linda Semple who started organising feminists’ forums in the City of London^vii. It is important to note that this network was different from the other pro-porn feminist organisations in the United States.

Unlike the American organisations that were registered and with their own membership, this remained a forum for discussion for those who supported the course. It had no membership other than the two pioneers who were involved in organising the rallies for the members whenever this was necessary.

It is also important to note that the context under which this group operated was very different from what other pro-porn groups in the United States operated. In the United States, there were no clear laws that censored pornographic materials among adults. In the United Kingdom, this law existed, and was seen to be subjective in nature by the feminists.

Although the wave of anti-porn feminists’ activities was felt in the United Kingdom, its impact was largely felt in the United States where the groups organised public rallies to champion for their course. For this reason, the pro-porn feminist movement received backing from many women in the United Kingdom than was the case in the United States where there was a divided opinion.

Feminist against Censorship was particularly against government’s censor against pornographic materials. They argued that these materials should be confiscated from children. However, adults should be given the liberty to choose whether or not to consume these materials. The group was particularly concerned of the impartial implementation of the law of confiscation of these materials.

They complained that police officers were harassing women in the society by constantly organising unwarranted search for these materials on homes of the lesbians.

At times, such police raids would come late in the night, infringing into the rights of privacy, especially when the raids took place when the couples were intimate. The movement considered this a deliberate effort by the law enforcers to intimidate them based on their sexual orientation.

According to Jeffreys, the co-founders of this movement were very intelligent ladies that were able to bring women in this society into a near similar approach of reasoning in this fight. For instance, in 1990, the two organised a rally in London to protest against women in this society.

In their protest, they were keen not to publicly champion for the rights of lesbians because they knew some of their supporters abhorred lesbianism. For this reason, they tied the rights of lesbians to that of every other woman in the country. They gave the image that they were fighting for the rights of all women in the United Kingdom.

When talking about night raids, they were keen to mention that the police unfairly targeted women, and not lesbians. When talking about pornography, this movement was very keen because it was aware that many women had a low opinion about it. For this reason, they mentioned that men in the society were at liberty to use the pornographic materials without police harassment, a right that was not common among women.

In this context, they supported the pornography without directly saying so, and this made many women rejected to pornography change their opinion towards it. Their arguments were more inclined to empowering women and allowing them to enjoy their rights, other than liberalising pornographic materials.^viii

This was the group managed to instil the spirit of rebellion on many women, and pornography was largely viewed merely as an object in this rebellion. For this reason, many women viewed it as a lesser social evil as compared to the discrimination they faced in the public.

Many contended that if pornography could be used to liberalise the society and free women from the bondage, then it was an acceptable social evil. This saw many women make contributions in newspaper articles and public rallies criticising the censorship of pornographic materials in the country. This group is believed to be still active in the country.

Feminists for Free Expression

In the late 1989, there was a group of women who were thinking of forming a group that would be more vibrant in supporting the rights of women to express their sexuality without feeling intimidated. This group was that the Lesbian Sex Mafia was not fighting for the rights of a section of women, especially the prostitutes within various cities in the United States.

As its name suggests, the Lesbian Sex Mafia was also viewed as a society for lesbians. Most of their activities also showed more inclination towards lesbianism other than overall protection of rights and freedom of women sexuality. As a result, some of these women felt that their views were not fully represented in the ongoing feminists’ wars. This formed the basis of the formation of this new organisation in the late 1989.

The founders of these groups included Candida Royalle and Veronica Vera who were human rights champions. In the past, they had come out strongly to champion the rights of prostitute and a time when mentioning a world about prostitution by women was considered taboo in this society.

They argued that this new organisation would be focused on fighting for the interests of all women in the society, irrespective of their profession, religion, sexual orientation, or social status.

According to Nestle, this organisation attracted a high number of prostitutes within the City of New York. In fact, many thought that it was specifically meant for prostitutes, a fact that made some women shun it during its inception. However, the founders were able to convince pro-porn feminist that this organisation was focused on fighting for the rights of all women.

It only happened that prostitutes formed part of the women in the society and, therefore, they were rightfully presented in the movement. During its early days, the society had a slogan which stated, “Let us stop hypocrisy by legalising abortion.” Veronica Vera criticised Andrea Dworkin and her group saying that in prostitution was not unique to the United States.

She was against criminalisation of prostitution in the society that made prostitutes look like criminals. According to her, men were hypocritical by stating that prostitution should be legalised while the truth is that they form 100% of the market for prostitutes. For a crime of prostitution to be committed, there must be the presence of a prostitute and the client.

If prostitution is a crime, then both parties are liable and should be answerable to their actions. However, this is not the case. Some states have criminalised the prostitution, making the lives of prostitutes in those states unbearable.

According to Vera, criminalising prostitution does not bring the act to an end, but only makes the process more complex for women. For instance, the report by Barton^ix observes that prostitutes who practice in the states where prostitutions are illegal suffer a lot in the hands of the law enforcers.

Some come to their joints, not to arrest them because of their crime, but to harass them and demand sexual favours. In this regard, the law does not help to protect the women from molestation from men. On the contrary, it takes away power from women, leaving them vulnerable to sexual abuse from men.

The law enforcers know that these prostitutes have no ability to report them for the molestation because their business is criminalised. This makes them commit such atrocities without a second thought. For this reason, this group believed that the prostitution should be decriminalised in order to hand over power to women.

Prostitutes should be treated just like labourers or physiotherapy and probably allowed operating with a license that would see them pay tax. According to Nestle, there is always an irony when it comes to criminalising acts such as prostitution or use of hard drug. It makes it more attractive to the youth who are rebellious in nature. It also eliminates the ability of the government to levy a tax in that sector.

It becomes a black market. Burns says that black markets are always thriving, because they do not have to operate under the strict laws of the state. This society argued that this is what is making prostitution even more popular and dangerous in the society. It is done without regulation, and some of the main players involved are the very law enforcers who are expected to arrest the prostitutes.

Feminist for Free Expression did not restrict its programs to fighting for the rights of prostitutes. It was also vocal in fighting for the rights of women who decided to act in the pornographic films. Their message was very clear on pornography. To them, pornographic materials may pollute the minds of those who are aged below 18 years.

For this reason, children under the age of 18 years should neither participate in the production of the pornographic materials or be allowed to watch the materials. However, adult women, just like men, should be allowed the freedom to choose on whether they want to participate on the production of the films or not.

During the first forum they held in 1989 when they were still largely seen to be part of Lesbian Sex Mafia, Candida stated that they were strongly opposed to criminal gangs that kidnapped women and young girls and subjected them to prostitution against their wish.^x

To them, this constituted a crime that should be prosecuted in a court of law. She also stated that using any form of force, whether financial or psychological, to force women to act in a pornographic film was illegal and they rejected it as a vice that degrades women.

However, she was very categorical that most women in this industry were acting out of their own free will. In fact, some of them even had websites where they sold their pornographic films which they were the main actors. It is wrong to claim that such individuals are forced into the act.

Developing legislation that prohibits pornography would render these women jobless. It is their wish to be in this industry, and they believe that they are making decent earning out of it. It would only be fair to have laws that would protect them as they do what they consider appropriate. The group was also critical of the laws that prohibited consumption of pornographic materials by adults.

Although it did not have direct links with the British Feminists against Censorship society, it shared their views about consumption of such materials. The group became very active in 1990s when it became apparent that it had broken away from Lesbian Sex Mafia.

The Impact of Feminist Sex Wars

The feminist sex wars finally came to an end, and just like any other conventional wars, there were losers and winners. It is important to analyse the impacts of this war in order to determine the winners and losers of the war.

Expansion of the pornographic industry

Following the feminist sex wars, the pornographic industry has experienced massive expansion over the years. When Andrea Dworkin and Susie Bright were fighting over the position that women should take about pornography, the industry was very small, and the society was very cautious of any pornographic materials. However, this changed in the 20^th and 21^st centuries.

The more the war between the two factions raged on, the more the society talked about pornography and the more it became acceptable. At first, people viewed the topic as taboo. However, this war provided a forum where people could talk about this issue freely and address some of the myths and misconceptions about pornography.

According to Meika, the United States along produces about 13,000 pornographic films in a year. The society has come to embrace these materials. This researcher also notes that almost 90% of these films have some form of aggression by men towards women.^xi

This is part of what the anti-porn feminists were against during the war. Even the pro-porn feminists stated that although they were not opposed to pornography, they disapproved of the violent acts that men in these firms expressed towards women. They championed for a pornography that was free from any form of violence, especially those that are directed towards women.

Increased rates of prostitutions

There has been a drastic rise in the cases of prostitution, not only in the United States, but also in other countries around the world. According to Jeffreys, the industry of prostitution has boomed even beyond the pro-porn feminists who were fighting for the rights of prostitutes.

In some countries, the industry is legalised and earns such countries good revenue of form of taxation. The war game prostitutes a voice and they can now come out freely and defend their profession, something that was very rare before the war. They feel that the society has finally accepted their profession.

High number of children below 18 years accessing pornographic materials

According to Hewitt^xii, the number of children aged 14-17 who access pornographic materials has skyrocketed. In fact, this report states that 99% of boys, and 86% of girls within this age bracket have accessed pornographic materials in one way or the other. This is one of the fundamental issues that the anti-porn feminists were determined to eliminate during this war.

Most of minors get these materials from online sources such as YouTube and other pornographic websites. Some of the girls get the materials from adult men, especially those with ill intentions towards them. The pornographic materials have serious negative impact on these minors, especially young boys.

Increased cases of child prostitution

One of the concerns for both the pro-porn and anti-porn feminist is that the war has led to increased child prostitution in the society. During this war, both sides stated clearly that they were against child prostitution. Susie Bright once stated that her organisation was strongly opposed to child prostitution and that the best way of addressing the issue is to talk about it.

This was one of the rare principles that both sides of the divide shared. They both believed that a child should be protected from prostitution as one of their fundamental rights. However, the report by Meika indicates that the war did not spare children.

They were constantly subjected to a society that was full of discussion of sex-related issues. Some became involved in sexual activities out of curiosity. They wanted to know more about what was constantly discussed in social forums, along the streets, and in the mass media. This was a war that was lost by both parties.

Introduction of sex tourism

Sex tourism was something that was unheard of when the feminist sex wars begun in the 1970s. However, Nestle argues that sex tourism can be directly attributed to the feminist sex wars of the 1980s and 1990s. During the war, the society was made to form a different opinion about sex, pornography, and prostitution. These were three words that were rarely spoken in the society then.

However, the war made society rethink about the topic and each faction came to its own conclusions. For the section that embraced pornography and prostitution, they viewed it as normal for the society to talk about sex. During this time, prostitution gained entry into the field of tourism. Male tourists started gaining more preference towards regions where prostitution was common than those areas that restricted it.

There was a shift from the love of animals to the love of women and men who offered sexual satisfaction to the male and female tourists. This became common in the third world countries that were under the burden of poverty. Tourists from Europe and the United States would flock into these countries not only to enjoy the beauty of nature, but also to get the pleasure offered by the prostitutes, some as young as 12 years^xiii.

Reasons Why Pro-Porn Feminists Won the War

According to Jeffreys, although there are cases when one would consider both factions to have lost in the battle, the truth is that the anti-porn feminist lost this war in totality. It is evident from the above impacts that the pro-porn won the battle only that sometimes their success went beyond or even against their expectations.

One of the main reasons why the pro-porn feminist won the war is that they targeted the younger generation and convinced them that their ideology was meant to protect women and men in equal measure. On the other hand, the anti-porn feminists received massive support from the aging population who were conservative.

As time went by, the older population became irrelevant in this debate, making the ideologies of the anti-porn feminists irrelevant. Another factor is that the pro-porn feminists were secretly backed by men who make the highest percentage of the consumers of pornography. Although this war was largely a feminist battle, men played some role in ensuring that the anti-porn feminists were defeated in this war.

Nestle attributes this success to the fact that the pro-porn were genuine in this war, while a section of the anti-porn feminists were only there to protect their reputation. Some of the anti-porn feminists were consumers of the pornographic materials, but to hide their true identity, they joined the anti-porn feminists. This contributed to their course being defeated.

Conclusion

The feminist sex wars of 1970s and 1980s sharply divided women into two factions. The first faction was the anti-porn feminists who were opposed to pornography and prostitution in the society. This group argued that, pornography where women were treated like slaves or sex objects was detrimental to the fight for equity that was gaining pace during this period.

These feminists stated that the way these women were treated in such movies was the same way some men treated in real life scenario. After watching such materials, men would try to implement them on their wives and girlfriends. They also argued that prostitution was a clear demonstration that women were objects meant to offer men sexual gratification.

For these reasons, law should be established to criminalise pornography and prostitution. On the other hand, the pro-porn feminists championed for decriminalisation of pornography and prostitution, arguing that women who were in this field had made their own choices as adults. They argued that the law should only focus on protecting children and women who were forced into the industry against their own free will.

To them, these laws would only limit freedom of women. The women who had considered pornographic industry or prostitution as the best means of earning their income should not be criminalised in any way.

The impact of these wars is that there has been increased pornography and prostitution in the society. It is evident that the pro-porn feminists women the war as many countries around the world became more liberal on the issue of pornography and prostitution.

Bibliography

Barton, Bernadette. Stripped: Inside the Lives of Exotic Dancers. New York: New York University Press, 2006.

Burns, Lynda. Feminist alliances. Amsterdam: Rodopi, 2006.

Cossman, Brenda. “Pornography, Feminism, and the Butler Decision.” Bad Attitudes 3, no.2 (1994): 54-135.

Herbert, Walter. Sexual violence and American manhood. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 2002.

Hewitt, Nancy A. No Permanent Waves: Recasting Histories of U.S. Feminism. New Brunswick, N.J: Rutgers University Press, 2010.

Jeffreys, Sheila. The lesbian heresy: a feminist perspective on the lesbian sexual revolution. Melbourne: Spinifex, 1993.

Juffer, Jane. At Home with Pornography: Women, Sex and Everyday Life. New York: New York Univ. Press, 1998.

Lishinsky, Rose. “On Our Backs Porn.” Off Our Backs 15, no. 3 (1985): 29-121.

Lyndon, Neil. No More Sex War: The Failures of Feminism. London: Sinclair-Stevenson, 1992.

Martindale, Kathleen. Un/popular Culture: Lesbian Writing After the Sex Wars. Albany: State Univ. of New York Press, 1997.

Meika Loe. “Feminism for Sale: Case Study of a Pro-Sex Feminist Business.” Gender and Society 13, no. 6 (1999): 705-732.

Nestle, Joan. The persistent desire: a femme-butch reader. Boston: Alyson Publications, 1992.

Susie, Bright. “Welcome to OnOurBacks: The Best of Lesbian Sex.” On Our Backs 1, no. 4 (1985): 1-75.

Footnotes

1. Kathleen, Martindale, Un/popular Culture: Lesbian Writing After the Sex Wars (Albany: State Univ. of New York Press, 1997), 87.
2. Sheila, Jeffreys, The lesbian heresy: a feminist perspective on the lesbian sexual revolution (Melbourne: Spinifex, 1993), 35.
3. Lynda, Burns, Feminist alliances (Amsterdam: Rodopi, 2006), 110.
4. Joan, Nestle, The persistent desire: a femme-butch reader (Boston: Alyson Publications, 1992), 39.
5. Walter, Herbert, Sexual violence and American manhood (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 2002), 48.
6. Loe, Meika “Feminism for Sale: Case Study of a Pro-Sex Feminist Business” Gender and Society 13, no. 6 (1999): 732.
7. Jane, Juffer, At Home with Pornography: Women, Sex and Everyday Life (New York: New York Univ. Press 1998), 49.
8. Rose, Lishinsky “On Our Backs Porn” Off Our Backs 15, no. 3 (1985): 29
9. Bernadette, Barton, Stripped: Inside the Lives of Exotic Dancers (New York: New York University Press, 2006), 54.
10. Bright, Susie, “Welcome to OnOurBacks: The Best of Lesbian Sex” On Our Backs 1, no. 4 (1985): 45.
11. Brenda, Cossman, “Pornography, Feminism, and the Butler Decision” Bad Attitudes 3, no.2 (1994): 78.
12. Nancy, Hewitt, No Permanent Waves: Recasting Histories of U.S. Feminism, (New Brunswick, N.J: Rutgers University Press, 2010), 121.
13. Neil, Lyndon, No More Sex War: The Failures of Feminism (London: Sinclair-Stevenson1992), 63.