What does Melinda Vadas mean by the claim that pornography’s manufacture-for-use creates women who are not necessarily persons? How well does she argue for this claim?
Pornography is a complex topic. Anti-pornography feminists claimed that pornography may cause serious problems such as gender inequality, thus opposed its existence. Whilst other feminists may disagree with those claims from disagreeing with one specific argument to claiming the benefit of pornography (Saul, 2003). Historically, women are excluded from the pornography consumer sitting. However, some people began to notice the demand of women in sexual fantasy space in this century. Some published works are described as designed ‘for women’ (Sonnet, 1999). Vadas (2005) claimed …show more content…
Some feminists argued that Vadas’s argument is based on the view that women really have the function to satisfy men’s sexual desire, but actually women do not (Saul, 2006). I will argue that even if a woman has a function to satisfy sexual desire, it does not mean this idea just harms women. If a woman has a function to satisfy sexual desire, it means that a person has such function. Thus a man, as a person, also has this function. If women can be an object that is used as something to satisfy men’s sexual desire, a man can also be an object that can satisfy women’s sexual desire. The argument that men cannot be object is based on the traditional idea that men are domination and subject in the society, and deny the possibility that men can be sexual object. A vibrator, for example, can be used as a man to satisfy a woman’s sexual desire nowadays. Using vibrators, women can fulfil their sexual desire, and also control their orgasm. In this case, women are subject because they are in the positive position. The vibrators are the sexual object obviously. Similarly, the vibrators have the same function with men as pornography has the same function with women. A vibrator is not sentient as object obviously. Men thus could become the object and be used for satisfying women’s desire following Vadas’s logic. Although this argument may make people feel uncomfortable, if people accept the view that a flesh and blood woman can be an object, then a flesh and blood man can also be an object, because both of they are human beings. In addition, as mentioned above, women can be in a positive position. This fact is ignored in Vadas’s
Pornography is a complex topic. Anti-pornography feminists claimed that pornography may cause serious problems such as gender inequality, thus opposed its existence. Whilst other feminists may disagree with those claims from disagreeing with one specific argument to claiming the benefit of pornography (Saul, 2003). Historically, women are excluded from the pornography consumer sitting. However, some people began to notice the demand of women in sexual fantasy space in this century. Some published works are described as designed ‘for women’ (Sonnet, 1999). Vadas (2005) claimed …show more content…
Some feminists argued that Vadas’s argument is based on the view that women really have the function to satisfy men’s sexual desire, but actually women do not (Saul, 2006). I will argue that even if a woman has a function to satisfy sexual desire, it does not mean this idea just harms women. If a woman has a function to satisfy sexual desire, it means that a person has such function. Thus a man, as a person, also has this function. If women can be an object that is used as something to satisfy men’s sexual desire, a man can also be an object that can satisfy women’s sexual desire. The argument that men cannot be object is based on the traditional idea that men are domination and subject in the society, and deny the possibility that men can be sexual object. A vibrator, for example, can be used as a man to satisfy a woman’s sexual desire nowadays. Using vibrators, women can fulfil their sexual desire, and also control their orgasm. In this case, women are subject because they are in the positive position. The vibrators are the sexual object obviously. Similarly, the vibrators have the same function with men as pornography has the same function with women. A vibrator is not sentient as object obviously. Men thus could become the object and be used for satisfying women’s desire following Vadas’s logic. Although this argument may make people feel uncomfortable, if people accept the view that a flesh and blood woman can be an object, then a flesh and blood man can also be an object, because both of they are human beings. In addition, as mentioned above, women can be in a positive position. This fact is ignored in Vadas’s