Introduction
The role of pornography in modern society should be considered as the topic for debate because of the controversial nature of this subject. Women’s ideas regarding the concept of pornography are important to examine and discuss in detail because of the prevalence of males’ views in this field. In 1972, Gloria Steinem wrote her essay titled “Erotica and Pornography: A Clear and Present Difference” to accentuate a difference between these two notions. Later in 1988, this topic was also discussed by Margaret Atwood in her essay “Pornography.” Although both essays are focused on associating pornography with depicting sexual violence against women or other victims, the main difference is in discussing the context of pornography: in contrast to erotica or contrast to prudence and entertainment.
Similarities in Margaret Atwood’s and Gloria Steinem’s Essays
The definition of pornography provided in the two essays is similar because both authors apply the idea of violence in order to explain their vision of pornography. Steinem claims that “‘Pornography’ begins with a root ‘porno,’ meaning ‘prostitution’ or ‘female captives,’ thus letting us know that the subject is not mutual love or love at all, but domination and violence against women” (37). Furthermore, the author also declares that pornographic content is related to dirtiness or even “filth” because it is rather “obscene” (Steinem 36). This definition is correlated with Atwood’s explanation of the concept: “The cutting edge of pornography … was no longer simple old copulation, hanging from the chandelier or otherwise: it was death, messy, explicit and highly sadistic” (318). It is possible to note that Steinem and Atwood are inclined to view pornography in association with violent actions of men against women, causing some physical and emotional harm, sadism, and even perversion.
According to Steinem and Atwood, the key message that is spread with the help of pornographic content is that sexual relationships mean some inequality, and women should accept the fact of their submission. This idea is presented in the essay by Steinem: the message of pornographic films and images is in “violence, dominance, and conquest” (37). As a result, both men and women begin to perceive sex as a tool “to reinforce some inequality, or to create one” (Steinem 37). Sex becomes associated with violence and pain that can lead to pleasure. Atwood develops a similar idea stating that pornography contributes to educating young men and women that violence and rape are acceptable in society. As a result, the shift in the public’s morality is observed: “In a society that advertises and glorifies rape or even implicitly condones it, more women get raped” (Atwood 321). The authors state that pornography should not be confused with the expression of human sexuality despite other people’s views on this subject.
Another similarity in the essays is that the female authors support their positions regarding pornography with the help of illustrative examples that can seem quite shocking for readers. Still, these examples serve as the evidence for Steinem and Atwood that are helpful to illustrate their ideas that can appear to their opponents as rather conservative. Thus, Steinem depicts the images involving the use of “weapons of torture,” “a physical attitude of conqueror and victim,” and “a very unequal nudity” among other details (37). Her purpose is to emphasize abuse, unequal power, and inequality in sexual relations. Similar examples are presented by Atwood, who refers to the results of her research on the topic: pornography is observed when “women getting their nipples snipped off with garden shears” or “little girls being raped” (318). The authors present shocking images to illustrate the concept of pornography to present a clear distinction between this notion and erotica and sexuality. The reason is that, as it is noted by Atwood, different people have various visions of pornography because there are still no effective definitions to demonstrate the dissimilarity.
Differences in the Authors’ Positions
However, in spite of many similarities in the discussed essays, there are also differences in these two authors’ approaches to presenting the information and the context in which they argue their positions. Thus, Steinem opposes the idea of pornography to the meaning of erotica (36). One should note that, according to the author, people need to distinguish between erotica and pornography in order to avoid using violence and oppression in sexual relations as a normal practice. Erotica in contrast to pornography is in “a mutually pleasurable, sexual expression between people who have enough power to be there by positive choice” (Steinem 37). The author develops this idea and concludes that “erotica is about sexuality, but pornography is about power and sex-as-weapon-in the same way,” and “rape is about violence, and not really about sexuality at all” (Steinem 38). From this perspective, erotica does not mean any violence or the objectification of women, but pornography means, and it creates a certain pattern to follow by men and women in their sexual life.
On the contrary, the discussion of erotica is not presented in the essay by Atwood, and pornography is contrasted with entertainment and prudery in this work. Atwood accentuates the presence of a certain dialectic in the analysis of the impact of pornography on society: this is the “You’re-a-prude/You’re-a-pervert dialectic” (320). Consequently, those people who express their ideas against pornography are inclined to be perceived as prudes, who do not allow themselves and others to focus on entertainment or enjoy life. However, the problem is that the spread of pornographic content is not only entertaining but also harmful because this content forms young people’s visions about sex. In most cases, people do not want to act as prudes and they prefer to choose entertainment, but pornography is harmful because of the spread of the focus on violence. Atwood supports her idea, stating, “Although pornography is not the only factor involved in the creation of such deviance, it certainly has upped the ante by suggesting both a variety of techniques and the social acceptability of such actions” (321). In this context, abuse and harm in sexual relations become viewed as normal.
It is important to state that the idea of pornography effects with a focus on its harm is more obviously discussed in the work by Atwood. According to the author, the key question to pay attention to is “What’s the harm?” (Atwood 320). The problem is that, since the debate on the existence of pornography is present, there is no clear answer to the question, in spite of the fact that people understand that pornography is rather dangerous for society. Thus, Atwood notes in relation to the question of the harm of pornography: “Nobody knows, but this society should find out fast before the saturation point is reached” (322). The author tries to find the answer to this question in order to persuade that pornography cannot be and should not be perceived equally to any other kind of entertainment. On the contrary, Steinem does not focus on the real harm of pornography, but she is interested in avoiding the confusion of such notions as erotica and pornography because of their different impacts on people’s relations.
Conclusion
In spite of the fact that the essays by Steinem and Atwood are similar in terms of their key messages and the association of pornography and violence, the key difference is in the context in which pornography is analyzed. Thus, one should note that Steinem focuses on the opposition between erotica and pornography. Atwood, in her turn, is interested in analyzing pornography in contrast to prudence, and moreover, she develops the idea that pornographic content is not appropriate to be viewed as entertaining because of its harm. While using similar images and examples in order to illustrate their ideas, Steinem’s and Atwood’s works effectively add to the content of each other. From this perspective, Steinem’s discussion of the concept is not enough without Atwood’s analysis of the harm pornography can have on young people’s visions and behaviors. Atwood does not provide an explanation of the notion of erotica, and her argument regarding pornography is successfully supported by Steinem’s comparison of two concepts. Therefore, although the essays have similarities, their content has also specific differences that allow for presenting a full picture of pornography as the topic under discussion.
Works Cited
Atwood, Margaret. “Pornography.” Canadian Content, edited by Sarah Norton and Nell Waldman, 3rd ed., Harcourt Brace, 1996, pp, 317-323.
Steinem, Gloria. “Erotica and Pornography: A Clear and Present Difference.” Take Back the Night: Women on Pornography, edited by Laura Lederer, W. Morrow, 1980, pp. 35-39.