This paper examines pornography through philosophical and feminist lenses. It contrasts Plato's condemnation of art and sensory indulgence with Aristotle's view that art serves a cathartic, necessary function — framing these positions as opposing frameworks for evaluating pornography's social role. The paper then surveys the feminist anti-pornography movement, focusing on the Antipornography Civil Rights Ordinance proposed by Andrea Dworkin and Catherine MacKinnon, as well as the case of actress Linda Boreman. It concludes by acknowledging pornography's supporters and calling for better protections for children and clearer legal boundaries around exploitation.
Pornography is a very divisive subject. Even though people have enjoyed watching pornography for centuries, a large segment of society does not appreciate the existence of the porn industry. Several factors lead some people to regard pornography as deviant and harmful to society. Anti-pornography radical feminists first expressed their discontent during the 1980s, when a porn actress claimed she had been violently forced to act in a pornographic film. The controversy surrounding pornography, however, has far older roots — it can be traced back to ancient Athens, where philosophers debated the subject fervently.
One of the main reasons some people oppose pornography is that male performers typically display dominant behavior toward female performers. Those who watch pornography may be led to believe that it reflects real life and that men are entitled to treat women in similar ways.
Both Plato and his student Aristotle engaged with topics that bear on the question of pornography. While both were among the greatest founders of Western philosophy, they held notably different views on art and its effects. As Walter M. Kendrick notes, Plato did not appreciate art or anything related to it, believing it was one of the foremost factors capable of harming the human soul. Aristotle, by contrast, believed that art was something necessary — something that man could turn to whenever he had need of it.
In Aristotle's view, people sometimes need certain things to keep them distracted and to purge harmful emotions. This idea of catharsis can plausibly be applied to pornography: watching it may eliminate lust rather than inflame it. One can argue that opposing pornography altogether reflects a Platonic position, while accepting pornography as harmless reflects an Aristotelian one (Kendrick, 1996).
The court case associated with MacKinnon and Dworkin refers to the effort by anti-pornography radical feminists Andrea Dworkin and Catherine MacKinnon — along with other members of the feminist anti-pornography movement — to propose a series of local ordinances known as the Antipornography Civil Rights Ordinance. These ordinances classified pornography as a violation of women's civil rights. City officials ultimately could not accept the ordinances, both because they were seen as overreaching and because they conflicted with the freedom of speech protections enshrined in the Constitution.
"Boreman case and limits of blaming pornography"
"Pro-pornography views and calls for safeguards"
You’re 60% through this paper. Sign up to read the remaining 2 sections.
Sign Up Now — Instant Access Already a member? Log inAlways verify citation format against your institution’s current style guide requirements.