Defending Pornography: Free Speech, Sex, and the Fight for Women's Rights

by Nadine Strossen

The president of the American Civil Liberties Union explains why censoring pornography undermines women's rights. Strossen claims that free speech and women's rights are not at odds--if we protect the law from the forces that would limit our constitutional right to free expression.

Genres: Feminism, Nonfiction, Politics, Sexuality, Sex Work, Law, Philosophy

320 pages, Hardcover

First published January 1, 1994

About the author

Nadine Strossen was president of the American Civil Liberties Union from February 1991 to October 2008. She was the first woman and the youngest person to ever lead the ACLU. A professor at New York Law School, Professor Strossen sits on the Council on Foreign Relations. She has been hailed as one of the most influential business leaders, women, or lawyers in such publications as the National Law Journal, Working Woman Magazine, Vanity Fair, and many others.

Strossen was born in Jersey City, New Jersey in 1950. She has stated that the experiences of her family were her inspiration to pursue a career in civil liberties. "My father was a holocaust survivor and my mother’s father was a protester during World War I when he came to this country as an immigrant, and he was literally spat upon for not going to fight in the war," said Strossen in an interview. "His official sentence for being a conscientious objector was to be forced to stand against the courthouse in Hudson County, New Jersey so that passers-by could spit on him." Strossen graduated from Harvard College in 1972, Phi Beta Kappa, and then graduated from Harvard Law School in 1975, magna cum laude. In law school, she served as an editor of the Harvard Law Review.

Strossen practiced law in Minneapolis and New York City for nine years before becoming a Professor of Law at New York Law School in 1989.

In February, 1991, Strossen became the president of the American Civil Liberties Union, filling the vacancy left by the resignation of Norman Dorsen. As president, Strossen made over 200 public presentations each year and gave frequent public commentary on civil liberties issues in the national media. She appeared on nearly every major U.S. news program and has received numerous awards and honors. In May 2008, she announced her resignation. On October 18, 2008, the ACLU selected Susan Herman, a constitutional law professor at Brooklyn Law School in New York, to replace her.

Strossen is an active member of NORML, an organization promoting the decriminalization of marijuana. She is also a member of the National Youth Rights Association Advisory Board and a founding member of Feminists for Free Expression.

In October 2001, Strossen made her theater debut as the guest star in Eve Ensler's award-winning play, The Vagina Monologues.

Strossen is married to Eli Noam, a professor at Columbia University's Graduate School of Business.

from Wikipedia.

Reviews

[persephone · Rating 1 out of 5]

Strossen’s fervent defence of pornography as a bastion of free speech and sexual liberation falls painfully short, overshadowed by a glaring disregard for the myriad ways in which it perpetuates misogyny and violence against women.

Her relentless defence serves only to reinforce the harmful myth that consuming and producing pornography is an inherently empowering act for women.

Pornography has detrimental effects on individuals, transforming men into perpetrators and women into victims, perpetuating the objectification and commodification of women's bodies for profit. Strossen, like many others, romanticises the portrayal of pornography as a form of sexual expression whilst glossing over the industry’s harsh realities.

In her defence of pornography, Strossen fails to acknowledge the countless women who have been exploited, coerced, and traumatised in its production. She conveniently overlooks the growing body of research linking pornography consumption to the normalisation of violence and aggression against women, perpetuating a dangerous narrative that trivialises their suffering.

Those who advocate for pornography cannot claim to stand for the empowerment and liberation of women. Strossen’s book may attempt to legitimise the industry and the effect it has on women, but it ultimately reinforces patriarchal structures that oppress and dehumanise women, reducing them to mere objects.

Ending this with a quote by Andrea Dworkin on pornography;

“Women are presented dehumanized as sexual objects, things or commodities; or women are portrayed as sexual objects enjoying pain or humiliation; or women are presented as sexual objects who experience sexual pleasure from being raped; or women are presented as sexual objects bound or cut open or mutilated or bruised or physically injured; or women are presented in positions of sexual submission; or women's body parts are displayed so that women are reduced to those parts; or women are presented as being penetrated by objects or animals; or women are presented in scenarios of humiliation, harm, degradation, torture, shown as dirty or inferior, bleeding, bruised or wounded in a context that sexualizes these conditions.”

[Sherry Lee · Rating 1 out of 5]

This one is difficult for me to rate. I didn't like it, because of my anti-porn politics, but I acknowledge that is well written and the arguments well articulated. Mostly. She refers to anti-pornography feminists as "MacDwokinites." Using such churlish name calling--as if her opponents are women from another planet--diminishes her writing considerably.

[Paul Crider · Rating 2 out of 5]

As someone who regularly defends sex work and sex workers, I had high hopes for this book. Unfortunately it was quite a disappointment. I have actually read some Catharine MacKinnon and Andrea Dworkin (the book's chief foils) and I found Strossen's treatment unfairly dismissive of these serious thinkers. For more than the first hundred pages of the book, the radical feminist ideas aren't even laid out in any detail. They're just gestured at with strong insinuations of their (apparently obvious) absurdity.

Strossen would fit in well with the so-called "Intellectual Dark Web" in how she identifies feminists--*some* feminists, who have "gone too far", to be sure--as a far greater threat themselves than the threats they speak out against. I kept having to remind myself that the book was written in the 90s (published 2000) and the live controversies were very different theb. Authorities in popular culture and in government really were antisex and censorious. Radical feminists were certainly a legitimate target given the kind of common cause intellectual heft they afforded regimes with real power to censor.

But then I got to the chapter about how the feminists--*some* feminists, of course--have just gone too far with "sexual harassment". Strossen worries that threats of sexual harassment have created a chilling environment for everyday sexuality. In the MeToo era, of course, this just seems utterly blind to the very existence of power dynamics. And there is no reason to suspect that power and hierarchy worked differently in the 90s than they do 20 years later.

I'd have given the book a lonely star but the second half of the book is much stronger, perhaps because Strossen is more in her element. This part of the book explores the strong libertarian and legal cases against censorship. Overall I'd give the book a pass, but if you do read it, make sure to endure through to the later chapters.

[Megan Snodgrass · Rating 4 out of 5]

Starting this book I came in with no specific viewpoint on pornography and how that fit into the feminist agenda. With that said, my mind was quickly awakened to the rhetoric on both sides on how pornography relates to women's rights, violence, and views on women. I think Nadine Strossen does a great job laying out the framework to the current issues (re: 1995 I should say), finding a balance of research to support her views, and highlighting to the reader how pro-censorship can be a slippery slope in regards to free speech and free sexual expression. I myself think we as a society need to do a better job educating individuals about sex and at removing the feeling of shame people feel about being open sexual beings. I liked that Strossen touched on this and how if we begin to censor porn, and free sexual speech in art, literature, etc. we are only pushing things further in the dark which can be worse than having everything in the light.

I would love to see how Strossen would speak about this issue nowadays. With internet being so prevalent, and porn being so accessible, it's not really feasible to censor it. Overall I think it's a fascinating read because it touches on all the potential ramifications censorship could bring. I do think it gets repetitive and could potentially have been shorter and still got its point across. Further, she notes that but I still think it's important to echo, in that I don't think porn in itself causes men to assault individuals, but I also don't think it's necessarily showing people uneducated in how sex works how to treat women well.

[Betsy · Rating 4 out of 5]

"The cure for every excess of freedom of speech is more freedom of speech." Molly Ivins, quoted in Defending Pornography.

[David · Rating 2 out of 5]

The author does her best to make the case for why society should neither ban nor censor pornography. She shows the inconsistent implications of her pro-censorship opponents and also engages the common idea of pornography as inherently abusive to women. She shows that the reasons given for banning pornography (in a liberal society) will also affect other areas of speech. She also shows that there are women out there who voluntarily choose to go into pornography and that there are erotic works produced according to strictly ethical codes. However, for me, the book fails in 5 key areas:

1. I am no longer young enough to accept the argument that pornography is a form of speech. I can understand arguments against its censorship based on broad libertarian principles, but I can't accept it based on the idea that banning it is an infringement of free speech. Sex is not speech.


2. This book could have been shorter. The only reason it was long is because the author broadened the scope of the work. Instead of just arguing against those who want to ban pornography, there is a chapter on why sexual harrassment is not sexism and another on a constructive approach towards reducing discrimination. While those who want to ban pornography see it as a source of discrimination, they do not argue that it is the only source of discrimination. In other words, nobody wants to ban pornography in the belief that it would end all discrimination against women.

3. The author spends a lot of time linking the desire to censor or ban pornography to the desire to silence relatively disempowered people - especially women. I don't know if there is anyone out there who wishes to ban pornography with only women in it. In my view it is usually a bad strategy to make arguments based on what you feel are the real intentions of your opponents. Better to argue based on stated intentions.

4. While she makes a good case that pornography does not run on women who are perpetually abused, she fails to point out that pornography (and prostitution) even when legal, always incentivize abusive practices. All work has abuses, but since sex is different from other types of work, its abuses will be different from the abuses in other types of work. The performers may sign contracts entailing strict consent requirements, but when the demands of the producers clash with that of the performers, the violations of these requirements will happen even if covertly. The threat of blacklisting and being labeled a difficult performer might force someone to engage in sex that they do not wish to have. You may work a few hours overtime to please your boss but being made to do something sexual against your expressed will in order not to be blacklisted will have psychological and spiritual effects beyond what most people experience in other types of work. In making the case that there are women who enjoy pornography, she listed veterans in the industry. But if she really wanted to present an unbiased case, she could have interviewed 18 and 19 year olds in the industry, those who do not yet have enough clout to go against the people who pay them to have sex on camera.

4. One must not be pro-censorship to understand that the idea that pornography is empowering for women is really absurd. Whatever one's view, it doesn't take much reflection to see that if porn empowers women, society must really be teeming with porn actresses holding positions of political and cultural power.

[Christine · Rating 2 out of 5]

i had to read this for a women's history class i took in college. i found it to be pretty interesting - different.

[Galatea · Rating 5 out of 5]

Full disclosure, there is a clear vested interest in me singing the praises of this book. I am a pornographer. I make art and stories that involve sex, sexuality, and intimacy. While I do not think it is anything to be ashamed of, it is clear that there any many who would disagree.

That being said, this book is an extremely thorough, eloquent defense of my work, the work of my fellow smut-peddlers, and anyone who wishes to make, distribute, or possess such media.

Above all this book is about defending "Pornography" in particular, and rebutting the bullshit of Andrea Dworkin and Catharine Mackinnon in particular. Aside from the two's terrible work ethic, penchant for vitriol and intimidation, as well as their inability to debate or even reply to those who wish to engage in honest, open discussion, they have done much more harm than good for feminism and social justice.

This is to be found in their main opus, the belief that censoring "Pornography" (whatever that vague, nebulous term means), would lead to less violence against women, and their commendable, if deplorable will to make that happen. Summarizing the flaws within their own arguments, the bullet points run as follows:
> Central to their work is their conception of ALL women as being passive victims (save for the few enlightened enough to join their cause), and ALL men as being violent, hyper-sexual sadists who have an insatiable thirst for lust and violence. I have read enough of Dworkin's Pornography and Mackinnon's Only Words to be sure in this assessment, and I am just as sure that I find their views deplorable.
> They have a seeming inability to attribute ANY agency at all towards women and men, where any actions or behaviors that do not fit their prejudices, such as women willingly making pornography, or men willingly being in love with other men, are simply explained away as deeper, more complex cases of violence against women and harassment.
> They are hallmarks of Second-wave feminism, in that they exemplify the extreme myopia that comes from their heterosexual, cisgendered, White, upper-middle class background, and the EXTREMELY disgusting attitudes they have towards "homosexuals and transsexuals".
> Most importantly, all the effort and media attention they foist on pornography as a scapegoat reduces valuable time, money, and energy that could be spent on ACTUALLY HELPING VICTIMS

Despite these shortcomings, antipornography legislation was enacted in various places around the world, including famously in Canada, where it led to targeted repression of feminist, lesbian, and gay literature, and ended up with no pornography repressed but with a lot more minorities silenced.

and that's not even going into the actual scientific research that's been done. Even at 1996 when this book was published, there've been numerous studies plotting the correlation between the availability of sexually explicit media and violent crimes, sexual assaults, and sexist behavior. Contrary to what antipornography crusaders would imply, there is NO correlation between pornography, violence, and sexist behavior. In fact, certain areas have an inverse relationship between the availability of sexually explicit material and the sex crimes committed in that area, which would suggest that more pornography would be better. Looking at the literature now in 2022, the fact of the matter is that fictional characters simply do not have any direct bearing on the harm that real, flesh-and-blood people face.

Ultimately, this book professes that the best way to counter speech you dislike is with counterspeech, and that censorship is a nuclear option, only to be used when there is a clear, immediate, imminent danger, such as shouting 'Fire!' in a crowded theater. This book is a brilliant example of counterspeech against those who wish to censor sexual speech.

There is much more I could cover, but I'm sure that this is more than enough of a summary of the book. If the above information has convinced you to get a copy, I wholeheartedly recommend that you do. If it has turned you off of it, then nothing else will convince you.

[Caterina Ambrosio · Rating 4 out of 5]

Nadine Strossen, docente di diritto Costituzionale alla New York Law School, scrive quest’opera come reazione ad alcune tesi del femminismo radicale guidato nell’America degli anni 90 da Catharine MacKinnon e Andrea Rita Dworking. Le due donne, femministe militanti, si sono rese protagoniste del dibattito pubblico americano, a seguito della loro proposta di legge che prevedeva l’abolizione della pornografia in quanto “forma di sesso violato”. Questa motivazione, che parrebbe in apparenza logica, in realtà nasconde una serie di falle che costituirebbero in ultima istanza un passo indietro nel percorso emancipativo delle donne, guadagnato con fatica dalle nostre madri e nonne nella seconda metà del 1900. Nadine Strossen propone le sue idee in chiave storico-legislativa con il supporto, nella parte conclusiva del libro, delle scienze sociali.
Tra le idee proposte come reazione al punto di vista pro-censura mi hanno particolarmente colpito due punti: il primo riguarda l’infantilizzazione della donna nel femminismo radicato e il secondo riguarda la disconnessione tra i reati sessuali e il consumo di materiale pornografico. È innegabile che vi siano forme di violenza nel sesso (che sfavoriscono principalmente le donne) e soprattutto nell’industria pornografica, problemi che vanno sicuramente scoperti e osteggiati. C’è però anche l’altra faccia della medaglia ovvero la maggiore libertà in ambito sessuale che le donne hanno conquistato anche tramite il porno.
Tra i pregi del libro rientra sicuramente la scioltezza della scrittura, in effetti è possibile leggere tranquillamente questo libro pur non disponendo di molte informazioni pregresse riguardo l’argomento. Ciò che ho trovato fastidioso è il discorso ridondante in certi punti e carente in altri: la Strossen ha scritto questo libro di getto, come risposta immediata a una proposta di legge che stava acquisendo sempre più consenso. Credo che il libro sarebbe stato più interessante se l’autrice avesse approfondito meglio il suo pensiero femminista, chiarendo al meglio le diverse posizioni all’interno del femminismo americano.

[Svalbard · Rating 4 out of 5]

Del duo femminista americano Catharine MacKinnon e Andrea Dworkin avevo sentito parlare per la prima volta da parte dello psicologo e neurologo Steven Pinker nel suo libro “Tabula rasa”, che ho letto, recensito e ho avuto modo di citare ripetutamente in altre recensioni. Pinlker parlava delle due femministe a proposito delle loro idee alquanto tendenziose e pregiudiziali in merito allo strupro. In sostanza, citava il fatto che esse pretendevano di censurare e cancellare qualsiasi espressione culturale in cui - a loro insindacabile giudizio - le donne risultassero vilipese e offese; e poi, ancora, affermavano che lo stupro e la seduzione sono fatti della stessa sostanza: costringere una donna, con le buone o le cattive, a cedere sessualmente: «spesso è difficile distinguere la seduzione dallo stupro. Nella seduzione, spesso il violentatore si prende il disturbo di comprare una bottiglia di vino». Pinker non si soffermava troppo a lungo su questi deliri, si limitava a citarli a latere della sua teoria per cui nella violenza sessuale la componente violenta è marginale rispetto a quella sessuale (quindi biologica), al contrario di una lunga tradizione culturale, femminista e non, che afferma esattamente il contrario. Invece, i suddetti deliri sono il tema principale di questo libro, scritto da Nadine Strossen, una professoressa di diritto costituzionale alla New York Law School. La Strossen, ovviamente, svolge i suoi ragionamenti nella chiave del diritto, affermando che proibire libri, film e altre opere dell’ingegno “per il bene pubblico” o di una qualche categoria specifica di persone (in questo caso le donne) non è mai una buona idea. Per farlo, riporta approfonditamente le idee della McKinnon e della Dworkin, analizzandole e approfondendole, e personalmente devo dire che sono molto più allucinanti di quanto pensassi. In sostanza, come già si intuiva dal passo riportato di Pinker, la sessualità che coinvolge la donna avrebbe sempre un substrato di coercizione psicologica; ma si va anche oltre, arrivando ad affermare che il piacere che le donne provano nel sesso non è vero piacere, o, peggio ancora, è un piacere “sbagliato” e in qualche misura politicamente scorretto in quanto figlio della sottomissione. Una visione, quindi, radicalmente sessuofobica che rispecchia da vicino quella di molta destra religiosa americana. “Il pene causa dolore, ma il dolore aumenta il piacere. E’ come se la capacità del pene di causare dolore sia una sua intrinseca qualità, non un uso a cui il pene è destinato. (...) Per effetto, scopare è un atto sostanzialmente sadico perché è necessariamente sia dolore sia piacere; e quando il dolore del pene si accompagna a una decisa crudeltà, si determina la più alta estasi sessuale, il più alto amore emozionale, o entrambe le condizioni”. Non si fraintendano queste parole, che da un punto di vista BDSM potrebbero pure essere condivisibili: esse sono state pronunciate per dire che il sesso uomo-donna, in tutti i suoi aspetti e le sue forme, è il male, e ogni forma di amore sessuale nasconde in sé uno strupro. Ce n’è anche per la maternità - il parto è una violenza agita dal di dentro - e per molto altro, compresa ovviamente la pornografia, intesa sia dal punto di vista oggettivo - libri che descrivono, o film che mostrano rapporti sessuali - che soggettivo - qualsiasi contenuto sessualmente esplicito che passi attraverso qualsiasi mezzo di comunicazione. Al contrario Nadine Strossen difende il diritto della pornografia a non essere censurata, e quello delle donne ad essere libere di scegliere da sole quello che a loro piace e quello che no; non è un mistero oggi, e non lo era nemmeno quando questo libro fu scritto, a metà degli anni 90 del secolo scorso, che una percentuale minoritaria ma non piccola dei consumatori di pornografia sono donne (e oggi questa percentuale è alquanto aumentata, sia grazie a internet che elimina imbarazzanti intermediari - i venditori di videocassette o DVD, o gli edicolanti - sia grazie a una quantità sempre crescente di prodotti pornografici espressamente orientati alle donne, tanto per il tipo di storie raccontate che per la cura estetica della realizzazione e il tipo di rapporti esibiti). A volte le conseguenze della crociata “macdworkinista”, come la chiama la Strossen, ha dei risvolti quasi comici: una donna che aveva letto un memoriale da loro redatto, riportante passi di vari testi pornografici da reprimere e censurare, ammise candidamente di essere venuta varie volte durante la sua lettura… Oggi sicuramente non corriamo più questi rischi censori. Mi viene tuttavia in mente una cosa che disse la scrittrice erotica italiana Una Chi (Bruna Bianchi) a un convegno a cui avevo partecipato alcuni anni fa: che la sessualità femminile non esiste, e la donna ha la possibilità di godere se e solo se sa adeguarsi a quella maschile… Qualcosa di non troppo lontano dalle idee macdworkiniste, in sostanza. Personalmente non sono d’accordo. Al contrario penso che la sessualità non abbia sesso (o meglio genere); penso che essa è una, e in essa si incontrano i desideri degli uomini e delle donne. Poi può essere meglio o peggio agita e vissuta, ma la sostanza rimane quella, compresa una certa quale dinamica di possesso e di dominazione (non sempre dell’uomo sulla donna, peraltro). Nel profondo uomini e donne, nonstante le apparenze, sono eccitati dalle stesse cose, come dimostrano gli studi citati nel saggio “Che cosa vogliono le donne” di Daniel Bergner, da me letto e recensito tempo fa.

[Star Goth · Rating 5 out of 5]

Her defense of sexual expression is so fresh and new even for being written over 10yrs ago. Her points and arguments are still relevant today. I suggest this book to any feminist. Nadine Strossen makes amazing points towards women’s equality and autonomy. If you are anti-pornography, I recommend this book. Even if you don’t agree I think it would be interesting to see another perspective for women’s rights.

As a SW, I have been excluded from feminist organizing and mainstream feminism as a whole. Strossen humanizes SW and holds violent men accountable for their actions.

9.8/10

[Sara Wiser · Rating 1 out of 5]

One thing about the author of this book: she FUCKING HATES Andrea Dworkin and she WILL make you aware.

I read this for research thinking it would be helpful and it was not so yay for that! Very much did not enjoy this because what I thought (and hoped) would be a genuine analysis of the role of Pornography and Sex in society was literally just the author airing out personal grieviences about her issues with Dworkin & MacKinnon and after the first 50 pages I could have cared less.

[Chiara Lou · Rating 3 out of 5]

A very interesting insight into the censorship debates that followed the sex wars but definitely outdated and very American.

[Vibeke · Rating 5 out of 5]

Audiobook

[Gab · Rating 1 out of 5]

While Strossen writes with an authentic and clear voice, she refuses to seriously engage with what she dubs the “McDworkin” school of thought, instead mocking the assertions made by her fellow academics.

While I agree with Strossen’s 1st Amendment arguments, the work falls flat when Strossen refuses to acknowledge what the science says, that exposure to pornography is associated with negative feelings toward women, violence against women, and other longer term side effects for the male viewers themselves.

Overall this is very much a liberal, “choice” based feminism approach to analysis, relying on the anecdotal evidence that “some women love it,” rather than branching toward class analysis.