In the wake of the rise of amateur pornography, sites like Only Fans and CamSoda have presented a familiar fork in the road for the contemporary feminist: Can pornography be feminist? At best, these voyeurism-based media outlets might serve as “empowering” sources of income for sex workers. At their worst, these platforms further serve the fetishization of feminine sexuality and operate as a falsified, capitalist bastardization of feminism, sometimes understood or constructed as neoliberal feminism. The schism created by the “camgirling” fork in the road hosts the opposition between the traditional anti-pornography feminists (aligned with second-wave figures of prominence, such as Catharine MacKinnon, Andrea Dworkin, Susan Brownmiller, Gloria Steinem, and Robin Morgan), and those who are willing to consider pornography as beneficial to the movement because it is a form of self-expression and feminine sexuality, and/or because self-uploaded pornography is a means by which women can become economically enriched, and get closer to a place of agency and self-determinism under capitalism. Despite the merit of the economic argument, I cannot share its sentiment.
First, I shall argue that even when women can profit off of their sexual objectification, it does not lead toward actual liberation in a man’s world and, in fact, further binds women into their own subservience. I will explore this by examining gender hegemony and gender construction and expression, a history of pornography and the depiction of women, and finally, gender capitalism. Lastly, I will propose a suitable policy-based correction in the form of a legal proposal for restricting adult content on the internet, dealing primarily with internet law and lightly with obscenity and the first amendment.
I. Gender Hegemony and Gender Construction and Expression
Since at least the scientific revolution, but likely long before then, western culture has been obsessed with mechanism and the understanding of our bodies as machines that can be fully understood if subject to enough scrutiny.1 However, our perceptions of the body, including its capabilities, possibilities, and identities, shift over time. When exploring the visual culture around gender, it’s crucial to understand that our depictions of performed gender begin in childhood with toys, films, cartoons, plays, and books that employ casts of archetypal characters. These archetypal images aid in the shaping of popular conceptions of gender expression and often ultimately serve in the perpetuation of sexism, transphobia, and homophobia.
In his seminal work of the early 1970s, Ways of Seeing, the English art critic and scholar John Berger delved into the world of visual culture. His book, and its accompanying film adaptation, were meant to recontextualize and push back on traditional Western cultural aesthetics by raising questions about hidden ideologies in visual images by introducing the concept of the male gaze. Berger noted that “The way we see things is affected by what we know or what we believe. ...We never look at just one thing; we are always looking at the relation between things and ourselves. Our vision is continually active, continually moving, continually holding things in a circle around itself, constituting what is present to us as we are.” The farther depictions of women stray from their live counterparts, the more objectified women become. If the art and the visual content that we are raised on tell us that women must look a certain way (thin, seductive, ladylike, etc.), they become mythicized into that fantasy.
A. Performative Womanhood
In distinguishing sex and gender, feminist theorists have disputed causal explanations that assume that sex dictates certain social meanings for women’s experiences. According to Judith Butler, “One is not born, but, rather, becomes a woman. ” Further, this gender identity “is in no way a stable identity or locus of agency from which various acts proceed; rather, it is an identity tenuously constituted in time—an identity instituted through a stylized repetition of acts.” The body, then, is “a set of possibilities” that signifies that “ its concrete expression in the world must be understood [by a ] specific set of historical possibilities.”
The specific historical possibilities in question revolve around the contemporary perception of an idealized woman. This ideal is often archetypal and entirely unrealistic. A woman is either understood as the fuckable jezebel (who can be raped because she is giving her body freely and welcomes perverse sexuality), a virginal child (who is lusted after to be parted from her innocence), a doting mother (who, though clearly not a virgin due to her having given birth, is removed entirely from sexuality and is a male caregiver), or a witch (who must be destroyed for attempting to use untraditional means of self-empowerment outside the scope of patriarchy).None of these archetypes address the actual complexities of the female experience.
In fact, there is no genuinely universal, monolithic womanhood. What women might unite under the banners of are not necessarily things to celebrate. Ought womanhood to be defined by the feeling of fear when walking alone in a city? Being taught to cross their legs and be polite? That men can harm them for what’s under their skirts and that they are weaker than them? To this end, “Femininity is an artifice, an achievement, “a mode of enacting and reenacting received gender norms..” (Bartky). Women are taught to see themselves through the eyes of men; they self-critique and correct accordingly.
As a structure of thought and ideology, the male gaze, and the female desire to conform to it, is for social capital and, sometimes, what feels like social survival. These structures work like an invisible hand, shaping the conscious and subconscious choices of women, our body politics, beauty standards, and what we hold dear. We can attribute this to the fact that “in contemporary patriarchal culture, a panoptical male connoisseur resides within the consciousness of most women: they stand perpetually before his gaze and under his judgment.
There is a tangible “tension between individual women's choices to present, maintain, alter, or use their bodies in certain ways and the social requirement to conform to gender norms,” all of which work to “reinforce women's inequality and powerlessness and limit the capacity for individual autonomy.” (Anleu) “Femininity has come to be largely a matter of constructing the appropriate surface presentation of the self,”7 a docile body “...whose [] energies are habituated to external regulation, subjection, transformation, improvement.
I. A History of Pornography and the Depiction of Women
Sex should be an exchange of energy and pleasure, or in some cases, an exchange of love. Ideally, it consists of verbal agreements governing the dynamic in terms of partners' wants and needs. A new touch or action might be met by “I like that,” or “I don't like that,” or perhaps the use of a safeword. These verbal exchanges may seem awkward, but that’s only because they’re not what we're reared to believe is sexy as based on the media we're exposed to. Since sex isn’t necessarily taught formally, we’re often forced to form our own expertise around juvenile experimentation and fantasy media like porn, which doesn’t offer realistic or healthy insight into actual development.
A. Why We Like Porn
One of the key factors of pornography is its famously broad array of “categories” or genres. Why is there so much out there? Why are so many of the videos offered so disgusting and obscene? How did these things, including urination, defecation, vomiting, anal prolapse, bleeding, gagging, choking, or crying come to be sexualized? Scopophilia is an aesthetic pleasure drawn from looking at an object or a person. In reference to human sexuality, it describes the sexual pleasure that one derives from looking at prurient objects of eroticism, such as pornography, the nude body, and fetishes, as a substitute for actual participation in a sexual relationship.
According to feminist film critic and scholar Laura Mulvey, “in patriarchal culture [woman stands in] as signifier for the male other, bound by a symbolic order in which man can live out his phantasies and obsessions through linguistic command by imposing them on the silent image of woman still tied to her place as bearer of meaning, not maker of meaning. Because film is an advanced system of representation (like language and the unconscious), it reflects and reinforces the prevailing patriarchy, which is structured by the desires of man.
Cinema builds the way [woman] is to be looked at into the spectacle itself,” indicating that cinema is built upon a patriarchal system that promotes the active/passive division of power along patriarchal lines.The film form is based on a patriarchal unconscious that derives pleasure from voyeurism and narcissism and that typically, a male audience is the assumed as the norm, a decidedly unfeminist method, which maintains female as other.
A. Depictions of Women in Pornography
While there are vast media displaying female-dominant sex, homosexual sex, or other types of more equalized partner behavior, these videos tend to require more searching or keyword use than just watching whatever appears on the home pages of porn sites. In terms of absolutely mainstream heterosexual porn (or performatively lesbian porn skewed towards a straight male viewer), there tends to be a throughline of expected imagery and behavior. The staples tend to include bizarrely childlike behavior from the women, who are often portrayed as either “teens,” “college girls,” “step-sisters,” or “babysitters,” and wear childlike updo hairstyles, make upturned doe-eyed faces, exaggerated pouts, and posture their mouths open wide with reverence for the phallus. They have a vocabulary of “ooh,” “yes,” and “fuck,” and always say such things like they are on the verge of tears. Absent, of course, are condoms, verbal affirmative consent, conversations about STIs, birth control, boundaries, or any acknowledgment of the real things that accompany intercourse, such as smells, sounds, feelings, or exchanges that are less than picturesque and only human.
Sound is a “signifier of power”9 through which gender is constructed. What possibly, then, could the panting, moans, wails, and profanities expelled with the women in mainstream pornography be conveying? It is doubtful that these women are truly experiencing so much ecstatic pleasure that they can hardly contain themselves. Since they’re paid actresses, they are either taking direction from someone or, in the case of self-uploaded OnlyFans videos, taking direction from the requests of their constituency. So what determined that this particular sonic experience was the most desirable? Perhaps it is the way in which these sounds convey helplessness.
Professor Christine Ehrick explains that “Humans can and do place their voices in ways that are consistent with the performative aspects of gender, and voice pitch is both highly variable and subject to cultural/historical framing and self-fashioning.” The female voice, when expressing pleasure, is deeply framed, for better or worse, by pornography.
The moaning and screaming of women in porn acts as a cookie-crumb trail for bolstering male dominance. This phenomenon can equally be illustrated by the popularity of female ejaculation in pornography and its translation into a commonly fetishized behavior amongst men. It is doubtful that the fetish is derived through a deep concern for the intensity of a fantasy partner’s orgasm as much as it supercharges and reinforces male ego regarding their own sexual prowess, to have confirmation of the power of their sexual performance, via a visible female ejaculate. Since the standard “dry” orgasm of women can be faked, it doesn’t bestow as much confirmation of a good performance as the undeniable ejaculation might provide. The same goes for moans, panting, and breathlessness. These sounds, animalistic and base, seem to convey a deep lustful “need” to be fucked.
However, here, I will interject a quick counterpoint. It is noteworthy that in some contexts, to be extremely vocal during genuine “in real life” sex, as a woman, can be powerful. In a world where women are often made to feel small or voiceless or are expected to internalize their emotions, to yell and moan is a beautiful release. It signifies the shedding of restraint. Yet, the voice can be put to more use in sex beyond this function; it can be used to verbalize pleasure, articulate terms, and navigate the experience to optimize safety and pleasure.
A. The Porn Body
In her studies as a feminist scholar, Professor Sandra Bartky draws on the experience of daily life to unmask the many disguises by which intimations of inferiority are visited upon women. She critiques both the male bias of current theory and the debilitating dominion held by notions of "proper femininity" over women and their bodies in patriarchal culture. To be properly feminine, according to Bartky, one must disciple the self to “produce a body of a certain size and general configuration “whilst “bring[ing] forth from this body a specific repertoire of gestures, postures, and movements” and considering the self and body as an “ornamented surface.”
Professor Susan Bordo asserts that the body, essentially in terms of what we eat, how we dress, and our daily rituals, is a medium of culture. Further, the body is a powerful symbolic form, a surface on which the central rules, hierarchies, and other commitments of a culture are inscribed and reinforced through the language of the body. A “made body,” as discussed by Bordo and Foucault, is one that has been constructed “through table manners and toilet habits” and other “culture” that is “converted into automatic, habitual activity “beyond the grasp of consciousness.” Women spend time on the management and discipline of their bodies through the pursuit of ever-changing, homogenizing elusive ideals of femininity. In addition to being “made bodies,” a woman’s body becomes a “docile body—,“ one whose “forces and energies are habituated to external regulation, subjection, transformation, [and] improvement. “ According to Bordo. “At the farthest extremes, the practices of femininity may lead us to utter demoralization, debilitation, and death.”
I. Gender Capitalism and Where Porn Meets the Real World
Gender capitalism is a term that isn't used much outside of academia or much within academia either. According to scholars Sarah Kaplan and Jackie VanderBrug, Gender capitalism as a concept is concerned with “applying a gender[-based] lens to [our understanding of the economy in order to] highlight the ways that gender is material to financial outcomes, and financial outcomes are material to gender.” These scholars also went on to outline that “paying attention to gender is not just about having a social conscience, nor is it about adding to our list of environmental, social, and governance investment screens.”
Marx's criticisms of capitalism can also aid in understanding gender capitalism. Professor Martha Gimenez believes that Marx’s work elucidates that “the oppression of women is the visible, observable effect (e.g., in the labor market, in socioeconomic stratification, the domestic division of labor, bureaucratie authority structures, etc.) of underlying relations between men and women determined by the articulation between the capitalist mode of production, and the organization of physical and social reproduction among those who must weil their labor power to survive.” She further emphasizes that “feminism, to remain relevant to the majority of women, must, therefore, acknowledge that most women are working women whose fate, and that of their families, are shaped both by gender oppression and class exploitation.”
A. Where Porn Meets the Real World
Pamela Paul is a columnist, journalist, editor, and author, most notably with the New York Times. In a speech delivered at a conference, she noted that "Men who watch a lot of porn seem to focus more intensely on ‘the visual,’ even when in bed with a woman, asking her to emulate the look and moves of porn stars. Women have distorted body images and feel the need to remodel their appearances – no matter how they personally feel about pornography. Though pressured to accept pornography as a sign of being sexy and hip, many women admit that in practice, their boyfriend’s porn hurts." She also goes on to explain a divisive movement within modern feminism: that in order to appear hip, women must often cast off their initial discomfort with pornography lest they be accused of being in bed with the right or “unliberated.”
Paul writes that “ in recent years, women’s magazines have regularly featured a discussion of pornography from a new perspective: how women can introduce it into their own lives. While many women continue to have mixed or negative feelings towards pornography, they are told to be realistic, to be “open-minded.” Porn, they are told, is sexy, and if you want to be a sexually attractive and forward-thinking woman, you’ve got to catch on. Today, the pornography industry has convinced women that wearing a thong is a form of emancipation, learning to pole dance means embracing your sexuality, and taking your boyfriend for a lap dance is what every sexy and supportive girlfriend should do."
Every loving relationship is composed of people with their own boundaries, limits, likes, and dislikes. It is plausible to me that some women are perfectly comfortable with their partner’s porn consumption, that they might even derive pleasure from it themselves, and would be happy to partake in the behaviors admonished above. I do not intend to call such women liars or claim they are in denial. However, I will agree with a more mild version of the sentiment expressed. To maintain social capital, to remain “cool,” and to cast off the ancestral death sentence of a woman “to be too emotional,” “too sensitive,” or “crazy,” today, women feel the need to conform to porn culture. Whether that means accepting violent or demeaning sex, unreciprocated orgasms, feigning acceptance of the widespread influence of porn on intimacy, or changing their bodies to conform to what are perceived to be new standards of womanhood.
AntiPornography.org (antiporn.org) is a nonreligious, nonpartisan, 501(c)(3) nonprofit organization. In its own words, the organization has been formed “to prevent and combat the devastating harms of pornography, prostitution, sex trafficking, and sexual slavery, as well as all other forms of sexual exploitation and abuse, through public education and advocacy.” The organization is self-described as “Nonreligious, Nonpartisan, Anti-Censorship, Pro-Free Speech, Anti-Banning, Anti-Violence, Anti-Slavery, Anti-Exploitation,” among many other labels they detail carefully on their own website. Because this organization is clearly in favor of a particular slant on the issue, I only borrowed the sources they gathered that come from scholarly authors and publishers rather than interviews or testimonials, and I note, of course, the nature and slant of their published materials.
In one article on their site, Antiporn.org outlines pornography video titles taken from March 2009 AVN.com top sales and rentals charts. They go on to write out the extrapolations they ascertain from such titles. They enumerate the following as things being “wrong” with pornography: 1. Pornography degrades and dehumanizes women and girls. ([see titles] “Sperm Receptacles 4," "Junkyard Cumholes") 2. Pornography glamorizes rape and abuse. ( [see titles]"Forced Entry Club 1," "Smothered and Covered 7.") 3. Pornography harms relationships and marriages by glamorizing infidelity. ([see titles] "Cheating Housewives 6," "Latin Adultery 6.") 4. Pornography lies about women, depicting them all as being sexually insatiable. ([see titles] "Addicted to C*ck," "Gang Bang Junkies.") 5. Pornography creates insecurities in men by falsely implying that a huge penis is necessary for the sexual satisfaction of women. ([see titles] "Teens Like It Big 2," "Bare Huge Dicks 7") 6. Pornography glamorizes sexual slavery. ([see titles] "Bound for Brutality," "Indentured Sex Slaves") 7. Pornography encourages child sexualization. ([see titles] "Bring 'Um Young 28," Barely Legal 90") 8. Pornography tolerates racism that is not acceptable in other media. ([see titles] "My Daughter's F*cking Blackzilla 17" "Racial Violations 2.")
The site also outlines, in its own terms, definitions for pornography and erotica. They define pornography as “ material that combines sex and/or the exposure of genitals with abuse or degradation in a manner that appears to endorse, condone, or encourage such behavior.” Erotica is defined as “sexually suggestive or arousing material that is free of sexism, racism, and homophobia, and respectful of all human beings and animals portrayed,” and goes on to note that “AntiPornography.org is not in favor of open public displays of this or underage access to it.” This sentiment is also echoed in a quote by feminist Gloria Steinem from 2005, “[Pornography] normalizes degradation and violence as acceptable and even inevitable parts of sex, and it uses the bodies of real women and children as its raw material. . . porn[] means females slaves, eros mean love -- and we can see that pornography, like rape, is about violence and domination, not sex. Millions of lives depend on our ability to untangle pornography from erotica, violence from sexuality."
A. Is OnlyFans any Different?
According to an article profiling OnlyFans on Complex.com, “OnlyFans is a subscription-based social media platform where users can sell and/or purchase original content.” Adult entertainment uploading users will post videos and photos to their accounts, which are protected by a paywall. To access this content, a subscriber will pay a monthly fee that ranges anywhere between $4.99 and $49.99.
The site premiered in 2016, but it became popular in 2020, during the height of the coronavirus pandemic lockdowns. This was likely because as adult entertainment clubs and venues closed down, workers still required a stream of income. Of course, also, as people stayed locked up indoors, isolated, lonely, and perhaps scared, pornography became a creature comfort, a source of pleasure and entertainment.
OnlyFans hosts creators who are professional sex workers, as well as amateur users who create and upload content arbitrarily in the hopes of striking gold. In addition to the monthly subscription fees, creators can charge a minimum of $5 for tips or paid private messages, which can boost their earnings. The site itself has put out a statement regarding the disparity of earnings between users, stating “[one’s] earning forecast really depends on the quality and quantity of the content [they] upload,” OnlyFans writes. “The more you post, the more incentive there is for your fans to subscribe (and remain subscribed) to your profile.” This formula seems all too familiar and demeaning. Creators must constantly push themselves to the edge to remain relevant and keep up their earnings. Whether this extremism comes through in the number of hours they spend online doing private chatting for tips or in making more and more outlandish and potentially harmful or dangerous content to try and make a name for themselves.
There is the argument that OnlyFans, due to its nature as a user-uploaded, amateur-friendly site, is an industry disruptor in porn and allows for users to make porn at home, on their own conditions, taking in all their own profit and not having to deal with co-stars, agents, directors, or other traditional fixtures of the adult entertainment industry. However, let's also consider the nature of Onlyfans as a “fan-based” platform. Subscribers on Onlyfans are essentially the patrons of pornography.
Onlyfans’ allure is based on the blending of fantasy and reality, allowing subscribers to have a “relationship” with the real women in the videos, who are “not actresses.” A user can chat with the creator, leave comments, give feedback, support her financially and see how their support can be put to use. A $10 contribution might merit the creator sending a subscriber a personal photo of her in her panties, a $100 contribution might get a lucky contributor a videochat with her, and the list goes on. The OnlyFans creator can no longer physically “leave the set” and go back to their normal waking life. The internet is 24/7/365, and a good creator is “always on.”
Further, when hiding behind the safety and anonymity of the screen, subscribers feel more comfortable saying things they wouldn’t in broad daylight. Unlike the traditional porn industry, where the movie was simply released, and any “feedback” came through the grapevine, on sites like OnlyFans, PornHub, and other internet porn fixtures, users can comment and leave feedback viewable by the creator and other users. Creators will see all kinds of comments left directly under their videos, praise alongside bullying, harassment, hate speech, or threats.
Former pornography performer Shelley Lubben, on the topic of whether or not there is really “free choice” in entering the world of pornography, has said, "Women, especially young girls, are never properly informed to be able to make a wise choice to enter porn. . . How, then, are women able to make an informed choice about being in porn? The only education young women receive about the porn industry is FROM the porn industry where glamour, fame, and fortune is promised when in reality, the only promise the porn industry should be making to young women are sexually transmitted diseases, illegal and hazardous work conditions, . . . threats to physically hurt them, coercion to sign contracts they aren't even educated enough to read or understand, threats for non-payment when they ruin scenes for things like crying or vomiting, and the regret of having their movies posted on the internet for a lifetime where family members and friends may find them."
Dr. Gail Dines and Professor Robert Jensen, in their study of pornography and the illusion of choice and empowerment, have written that "Pro-pornography leftists often rush to explain that the women in pornography have chosen that work. . .As we understand left analysis, the focus isn't on individual decisions about how to survive in a system that commodifies everything and takes from us meaningful opportunities to control our lives. It's about fighting a system." Further, the two scholars emphasize that "Leftists who otherwise pride themselves on analyzing systems and structures of power, can turn into extreme libertarian individualists on the subject of pornography. The sophisticated, critical thinking that underlies the best of left politics can give way to simplistic, politically naïve, and diversionary analysis that leaves far too many leftists playing cheerleader for an exploitative industry.”
The Current Relevant Policies
Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act provides that a provider of an interactive computer service shall be granted immunity from publishing content posted by a third party. Currently, the law is not doing much in the way of incentivizing internet providers to keep pornography away from impressionable young minds or filtering out porn that features minors, assaults, rape, or porn that is filmed without consent or uploaded as revenge against the person featured. In a case decided in October of 2022, Does v. Reddit, Inc., the Ninth Circuit court of appeals ruled that whilst Reddit Inc. “turned a blind eye” to child pornography available on its site, they would be protected from a lawsuit under Section 230 because there was no “connection between the child pornography posted on the website and the revenue the website generated, other than the fact that the website made money from advertising.” It is noteworthy that Reddit is not a Porn site but a message board-style form of anonymous social media.
In 2018, Section 230 was amended by the Fight Online Sex Trafficking Act (FOSTA), which allows victims of trafficking to bring civil lawsuits against platforms that helped the traffickers. The Reddit case hinged on the interpretation of this amendment, but ultimately it was decided that the site would benefit from its Section 230 shield. FOSTA lacks the bite it would need to give online service providers a proper scare and allow them to do better to monitor what is festering in their sites.
Conclusion and Proposal for Change
I do not take the position that all forms of pornography ought to be banned. I do not take the position that all pornography is harmful and entirely separate from erotica. But I feel it is evident that this content causes genuine, measurable harms that affect the population disparately and fall most gravely upon women. Pornography is not a new phenomenon, it is something we have existed with for a long time, but with its combination with the internet, it is a changed medium. No longer is it contained in physical magazines, VHS tapes, or gentleman’s clubs– it exists across nearly infinite platforms accessible from all kinds of devices in the blink of an eye. The way that we handle our societal conception of pornography in the wake of the internet must meet its newfound proliferation in our culture.
As sites like Only Fans have joined the ring of pornography available online, alongside facially “neutral” sites like Reddit and Twitter, that can host unvetted pornography, we can no longer rely on outdated modalities of policing or legislating around such media. There is not a typical “good old fashioned first amendment debate” to be had over child pornography, snuff films, revenge porn, or hardcore videography getting into the hands of anyone with internet access.
Though some argue that the porn created specifically for the age of the internet can offer an “empowering” sources of income for sex workers, such conversations fail to consider the harms that the genre as a whole present to women and minors. These platforms glamorize a life in pornography, and further serve the fetishization of feminine sexuality, and operate as a falsified, capitalist bastardization. They do not educate young people about the genuine conditions of working in adult entertainment or prepare them for the consequences of such choices.
While porn advocates pat themselves on the back as “progressive” and “modern,” claiming pornography as a legal issue is one of “personal freedoms and choice,” “freedom from religious shame,” and a “source of empowerment,” they forget the snail’s pace of welfare. We are not a society that is equipped to support a porn state. We do not have proper education about safe sex, universal access to abortion, guaranteed healthcare for STIs, or other conditions related to sexual activities. We lack resources to provide rehab for the substance abuse that is rampant within the porn community or adequate protective systems for victims of gender-based violence.
So, despite seeing the merit in the economic argument, I cannot share its sentiment. Even when women can profit off of their sexual objectification, they cannot truly enjoy any new freedom derived from their career in pornography. Working in porn, even on one’s own terms, in a way that differs from the traditional studio model, does not lead toward actual liberation. It allows for the continued praising of a porn culture and falsifies such a lifestyle as being safely plausible under the current scheme of power and policy in the country today. It is a man’s world, and the election by women to remain bound to their own positions as objects of sexual desire is each individual woman’s choice to make. But policy can exist around their choices and guide other women to make different decisions.
Repealing Section 230 of the communications act and creating a system with greater liability concerns for internet service providers is a start. Making media giants care about the impact of the media they provide is only the beginning. Removing illegal pornography or properly securing that only legal pornographic media be uploaded in the first place is a healthy beginning for preventing the minds of young people from being affected by the visual stimuli of pornography. As teenagers grow into their bodies, they ought to do so free from the invitation of body dysmorphia, sexual dysfunction, or porn addiction by familiar websites. The sale of pornography ought to exist in its intended fora, for persons of adult age, by rightful, knowing platforms.
WORK CITED
Anleu, Sharyn R. "Gendered Bodies: Between Conformity and Autonomy." Handbook of Gender and Women's Studies; Handbook of Gender and Women's Studies. Edited by Kathy Davis, Mary Evans, and Judith Lorber. Sage Publications, Inc, Thousand Oaks, CA, 2006. ProQuest, http://libproxy.usc.edu/login?url=https://searchproquestcom.libproxy2.usc.edu/docview/621356951?accountid=14749, doi:http://dx.doi.org.libproxy2.usc.edu/10.4135/9781848608023.n21.
Bartky, Sandra Lee “Femininity and Domination: Studies in the Phenomenology of Oppression”
(1990)
Bartky, Sandra Lee, (1997) "Foucault, Femininity and the Modernization of Patriarchal Power"
from Katie Conboy, Nadia Medina, and Sarah Stanbury (eds.), Writing on the body: Female
embodiment and feminist theory pp.129-154, New York: Columbia University Press ©
Bigler RS, Liben LS. A developmental intergroup theory of social stereotypes and prejudice In:
Liben LS, Bigler RS, editors. Advances in child development and behavior: The role of gender in
educational contexts and outcomes. London, UK: Academic Press; 2006. pp. 39–89.
10.1016/S0065-2407(06)80004-2 [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
Bordo, Susan. Unbearable Weight: Feminism, Western Culture, and the Body. 10th anniversary
ed. Berkeley, Calif.: University of California Press, 2003. Print.
Diamond, Irene and Quinby, Lee “Feminism & Foucault: Reflections on Resistance” (1988)
Ehrik, Christine. Vocal Gender and the Gendered Soundscape: At the Intersection of Gender
Studies and Sound Studies. Sounding Out, 2015
Frontgia, Terri. “Archetypes, Stercotypes, and The Female Hero: Transformations in
Contemporary Perpectives.” Mythlore, vol. 18, no. 1 (67), 1991, pp. 15–18. JSTOR,
http://www.jstor.org/stable/26812483. Accessed 16 Dec. 2022.
Gimenez, Martha E. Capitalism and the Oppression of Women: Marx Revisited, Science &
Society Vol. 69, No. 1, Marxist-Feminist Thought Today (Jan., 2005), pp. 11-32 (22 pages)
Kail RV Jr., Levine LE. Encoding processes and sex-role preferences. J Exp Child Psychol.
1976;21(2): 256–263. 10.1016/0022-0965(76)90039-4 [Google Scholar]
Kaplan, S., & VanderBrug, J. (2014). The Rise of Gender Capitalism. Stanford Social Innovation
Review, 12(4), 36–41. https://doi.org/10.48558/BVFT-E655
Koblinsky SG, Cruse DF, Sugawara AI. Sexrole stereotypes and children’s memory for story
content. Child Dev. 1978;49(2): 452–458. 10.2307/1128710 [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
Martin CL, Halverson CF Jr. A schematic processing model of sex typing and stereotyping in
children. Child Dev. 1981;52(4): 1119–1134. 10.2307/1129498 [Google Scholar]
MESSNER, MICHAEL A. “BARBIE GIRLS VERSUS SEA MONSTERS: Children
Constructing Gender.”GENDER & SOCIETY, Vol. 14 No. 6, December 2000
Shutts K, Banaji MR, Spelke ES. Social categories guide young children’s preferences for novel
objects. Dev Sci. 2010;13(4): 599–610. 10.1111/j.1467-7687.2009.00913.x [PMC free article]
[PubMed] [Google Scholar]
Taylor MG. Gelman SA. Children's gender- and age-based categorization in similarity and
induction tasks. Soc Dev. 1993;2(2): 104–121. 10.1111/j.1467-9507.1993.tb00006.x [Google
Scholar]
