More handpicked essays just for you.
"let's put pornography back in the closet
Let's put pornographyback in the closet by susan brownmiller analysis
Media censorship
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: "let's put pornography back in the closet
In “Let’s Put Pornography Back in the Closet,” Brownmiller discusses her views on the First Amendment and pornography. She explains that pornography has become a disturbingly common sight and there should be some type of restrictions put forth to protect the people who are subject to seeing such obscene materials. Brownmiller uses her feminist views to convince the reader that these restrictions are needed, but only in cases dealing with pornographic material. She uses examples of court cases dealing with banned materials to show when the First Amendment was being used correctly to protect obscene works of art.
Susan Brownmiller’s essay is directed towards the publishers of pornography, who knowingly publish for the public to see on a day-to-day basis. With this audience, her argument is mostly ineffective because of her harsh diction that does not appeal to the opposite sex. Other reasons the essay is ineffective are because of the sudden change in tone and scattered essay structure that leads the audience to become confused by unclear thoughts.
Brownmiller is compelled to write...
Accordingly, “pornography can be considered mainstream” (page 460, paragraph 1, line 5), said the author. However, there were problems brought up since the pornography glorify the violence and crimes, and it had no difficulties in being shown in mass media. Jean Kilbourne, though, did not place all the blame on advertising when she pointed out: “Ads don’t directly cause violence, of course. But the violent images contribute to the state of terror” (page 466, paragraph 2, line 1). Such erroneous attitudes are known to be existed as: “women are valuable only as objects of men’s desire, that real men are always aggressive, that violence is erotic, and that women who are the victims of sexual assault “ask for it”” (page 478, paragraph 5, line 2). The impact it made on women well-being is dreadful when it comes with them along their journey through life starting from being misbelieved as young to ending up with self
Susan Brownmiller is a feminist, the founder of Women Against Pornography, and an author of several books (57). The essay “Let’s Put Pornography Back in the Closet” comes from the book Take Back the Night, published in 1980 (57). She clearly wants to inform and persuade the audience of this essay to believe that pornography is degrading to women. In her introduction, Brownmiller tries to gain the reader’s sympathy by stating, “Free speech is one of the great foundations on which our democracy rests” (57). However, she does not think that pornography should be protected under the First Amendment. Her reasoning is biased and based on her own moral beliefs.
Let’s Put Pornography Back in the Closet” is an persuasive essay written by Susan Brown Miller stating and giving her reasons on why she thinks pornography should be removed from all the shelves in America. She goes on to state what kind of influence porn has negatively on society, and how it’s no good in our society to persuade readers that pornography should be taken off of public shelves. In her article, she does state very valid points and substantial reasons why pornography should be removed from shelves. But also, she does sound a lot like a person who is very critical of something that she believes is wrong morals wise because that’s how she was raised perhaps. Some of the methods she uses are the analogy method, quantitative method, and some emotional appeal as well. She also has some unsupported generalizations that she had made up herself. Either way, there were a few instances to where I was completely against with Miller’s arguments, but they were outweighed by the instances where I did agree with Miller. In all, this essay persuades me to support her opinion on pornography being taken out the public shelves because of the valid reasons and points that she used to support her opinion.
Wendy McElroy in “A Feminist Defense of Pornography” argues that degrading is subjective to each women and it’s up to them to define it. As much as that is true, does it mean that there shouldn’t be a standard to the word “degrading”? Take for example, pain is subjective, the same papercut can feel painful to me yet not to another person. There are even people who suffer from congenital analgesia (the inability to feel physical pain), But does this mean that it is right to inflict physical pain on those people? The law is the standard for defining physical pain and so the term “degrading” should also has its standard as it will cause harm to others.
Susan Jacoby, in her essay entitled “A First Amendment Junkie,” attacks those who believe that the first amendment should not be cause for the continuation of public obscenity. Jacoby, adamant defender of the first amendment, questions those who wish for the freedom of expression to be denied in the case of pornography, yet seem complacent about the racism and sexism that comes from freedom of speech as well. Additionally, Jacoby argues that it is too difficult to distinguish pornography from beauty and art from obscenity. One person may see David as a wonder to behold, and yet another may look at it as degrading towards men. Jacoby believes that rather than censorship-supporters controlling what their family watches, they want the government
Chief Justice Warren Burger set three rules that are helpful in determining whether a material is pornographic or not. First, it is important to determine whether the material appeals to the prurient interest if an average person applies contemporary community standards to that materia (Barmore 475)l. Second, determine whether the material describes or depict sexual content, in a patently offensive manner (Barmore 476). Finally, determine whether the entire work lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value (Hafen 210). These three tests can help one determine whether a
...of pornography as an expression that should be defended. I have described ways that pornography is currently being battled for in modern legislation, as well as the Liberal Feminist arguments for pornography as expression. The Radical Feminist arguments against pornography were addressed and negated, as not having any empirical support to their theoretical claims. Pornography has no substantial evidence in favor of harm to women, in terms of subjugation or violence, and therefore cannot be regulated as a form of free speech.
[2] In this issue essay I will first discuss the history of pornography in America and the emergence of Hustler. I will then show how the movie makes the viewer feel proud of the country without letting the viewer choose if he or she is really pleased with what is being protected, pointing out the impossibility of portraying the obscene images in an R-rated film. After that, I will discuss the possible ramifications of pornography, including violence against women and children. I will then address the moral implications of a complete freedom of expression and the possible effects of promoting ignorance about pornography through the movie. Finally, I will comment on my views regarding pornography and censorship in our society.
When deliberating over whether access to pornography should be prohibited, four areas of contention must be elaborated upon and evaluated critically to provide a sensible basis on which a judgement can be made. Firstly, it must be concluded whether pornography can be classed as a form of speech, and whether it enjoys the same protections as art and literature under the principle. Secondly, works such as those of Catherine MacKinnon can be drawn upon to offer a feminist perspective of the effects of pornography on the treatment of women within modern democratic society. Moreover, the principles of Devlin and Feinberg offer relevant acumen regarding the criminalisation of pornographic media. Overall, this essay will argue that whilst access to pornography should not be entirely prohibited; publications that depict ‘extreme’ situations should be subject to regulation and restriction.
In “Take Back The Night: Women on Pornography,” Laura Lederer argues that pornography is immoral because it is harmful to people. One of her main claims states that causing pain to another, exploiting another, degrading another, misrepresenting and slandering another are all acts of immoral behavior. If pornography harms individuals, then pornography is immoral. In conclusion, this paper will argue the moral right to deny pornography.
This consequentialist approach to countering violence is prominent in John Stuart Mill’s On Liberty. Mill’s Harm Principle states that ‘the only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilised community, against his will is to prevent harm to others.’ It should be noted that this principle excludes children, as does this essay, and does not apply to ‘backwards’ societies as both parties cannot evoke ‘free and equal discussion’. It should also be noted that Mill steers away from discussing violent pornography; however, his appeal to utility in the principle of harm ( actions that are not in the general interest of society and thus can be deemed immoral and face legal restrictions) is a sufficient ground to base this the discussion of whether violent pornography is as justifiable basis of inciting violence to restrict viewers access to it and ,in turn, their sexual autonomy.
Patrick’s Pursuit of Pleasure Patrick should have the legal right to watch pornography in a public setting. There are many who disagree. They cite various reasons, some of which can be somewhat convincing, as to why Patrick’s right to view should be restricted by law. They suggest that it is, among other things: immoral, offensive, a public nuisance, bad for business, a bad influence for youngsters and degrading to women. While these are indeed good points, further examination will help us to see the flaws in each of these arguments.
In the today’s society, social media has gone out of hand. Most people these days have a cell phone, Ipad and/or laptop and most definitely a television at their home. Therefore, access to pornography has become extremely easy and can be available to any individual in less than 5 minutes. The best definition of pornography can be explained as sexually explicit words or images intended to provoke sexual arousal. The easy access to porn has raised many people to question if porn is harmful, if it should be censored, and if it is unsafe. Many debates have been going on about porn concerning freedom of rights, speech, and entertainment and right of privacy. The main people to have argued on this point are Catherine Mackinnon and philosopher J.S. Mill.
Many feminist theories believe that pornography is part of male culture and the patriarchy in which women are exploited and abused. In fact, one of radical feminism philosophy’s primary concerns is pornography as they believe porn degrades women and that women involved in the industry are physically damaged by patriarchy, as pornography as often directed by male pornographers (McElroy 2016). Renowned radical feminist Andrea Dworkin explored issues like misogyny and pornography. Dworkin spoke out for several causes, primarily in ending violence against women. Her famous work Pornography: men possessing women (1981) argues that porn teaches men to rape and violently abuse women. However, studies show that watching pornography its self does not cause any considerable social harm. Despite this, it is true that the adult industry itself can be torturous and
In recent years, pornography has established itself as perhaps the most controversial topic arising out of the use of the Internet. The easy availability of this type of sexually explicit material has caused a panic among government officials, family groups, religious groups and law enforcement bodies and this panic has been perpetuated in the media.