Feminist sex wars
In 1983, Page Mellish, a one-time member of WAVPM and of WAP, founded Feminists Fighting Pornography to focus on political activism seeking legal changes to limit the porn industry.
In October 1980, the National Organization for Women identified what became known as the "Big Four" through declaring that "Pederasty, pornography, sadomasochism and public sex" were about "exploitation, violence or invasion of privacy" and not "sexual preference or orientation".
[20] The two sides of the feminist sex wars clashed over a number of issues, resulting in intense debates held both in person and in various media.
Toward the end of the 1970s, much of the discourse in the feminist movement shifted from the discussion of lesbian feminism to focus on the new topic of sexuality.
[citation needed] Anti-pornography movements developed from fundamental arguments displayed by lesbianism, such as the notion of patriarchal sexual relations.
[19][21] Another idea taken from lesbian feminism by anti-pornography groups was that sexuality is about creating a compassionate bond and a lasting relation with another person, contrary to the belief of the purely physical nature of sex.
[27] Radical feminists emphasize that pornography illustrates objectification and normalization of sexual violence through presentation of specific acts.
[27] The main focus of the sex wars' debate on sadomasochism and other BDSM practices took place in San Francisco.
Examples include: "The confusion in the interpretation of the definition of human trafficking is a consequence of opposing feminist views on prostitution.
Items such as sex objects and porn, identified by some second-wave feminists as instruments of oppression are now no longer being exclusively used by men but also by women.
[36] Feminist critic Teresa de Lauretis sees the sex wars not in terms of polarized sides but as reflecting a third wave feminism inherently embodying difference, which may include conflicting and competing drives.
[37][38] Meanwhile, critic Jana Sawicki rejects both the polarized positions, seeking a third way that is neither morally dogmatic nor uncritically libertarian.
