To the Editor:
The "dilemma" which Matt Nisbet points out in feminist discourse on pornography ("Playboy Opponents Face a Long Fight," April 13, 1995) is actually old news. The pornography debate reached its height as one the of the most controversial social issues and one of the most divisive issues within the feminist movement during the 1980s.
Many would argue that among feminists, there exist two strains of thought on pornography: those against the production of pornography and those who believe it has a right to exist.
Those individuals who consider themselves to be anti-porn are often, as in Nisbet's column, criticized for being anti-sex, anti-sexuality, and/or anti-nudity. This is rarely the case among feminists.
Those who condone the production of pornography -- itself a hotly debated category -- usually consider themselves to be anti-censorship or pro-sexuality. Thus, though it may be true that two strains of thought exist, these strains are not truly opposable and should not be considered polar.
In defense of those feminists among us who may sometimes consider themselves to be anti-pornography, I must repeat: We are not anti-sex, anti-sexuality or anti-nudity. We do not oppose pornography because it portrays nudity or sexually explicit material.
We oppose it because it misrepresents women's sexuality -- it misrepresents even nudity. It degrades, subjugates and denies that women have a sexuality outside of that constructed by a male voyeur. We abhor it because it has been proven to provide a motivation for sexual abusers. And we are insulted by it because it perpetuates the belief that women can be manipulated, packaged and sold at a reasonable price.
There is most definitely a substantive difference between a painting or a drawing of a nude women and a glossy page featuring a manipulated photograph of an objectified female model.
