Since the mid-1980s, a strange sight has been on the political horizon. Feminists are standing alongside their archenemies, "conservatives and religious fundamentalists," to call anti-pornography laws. This phenomenon threatens the well being of women in at least three important ways: feminism is no longer a stronghold of freedom of speech, women's unacceptable sexual choices are now under new attack, it involves rejecting the principle "a woman's body, a woman's right" (McElroy). According to University of Michigan professor, Catharina MacKinnon, who helped write the law brief, "in the US, the obscenity laws are all about not liking to see naked bodies, or homosexual activity, in public. Our laws in the US dont consist the harm to women. But in Canada it will now be materials that subordinate, degrade women that are obscene" (Hill and Silver). In 1983 and 1984, the Minneapolis city council passed the first civil rights antipornography ordinance written by MacKinnon and Dworkin, only to have it vetoed by the mayor both times. Then in Indianapolis the city council passed and the mayor signed the first version of the Dworkin-MacKinnon Ordinance was adopted in Bellingham, Washington by voter initiative, gathering over 62 percent of the vote. It met .
similar fate as the Indianapolis ordinance when Federal District Court Judge Carolyn Dimmick turned it down (Hill and Silver). .
Andrea Dworkin, the author to "Reply to John Irving," critiques Irving's essay like he was a merciless, no good, vicious criminal. We all know that she stands very clearly on the side of antipornography. In her response, she uses her personal experiences to get her point across. This essay appeared in The New York Times in the March issue of 1992 (Selzer 526). This is about eleven years ago. Without a doubt, society sure has changed. These days you cant watch a T.V. show without a sex/kissing scene. Considering this essay was published in The New York Times, it mustve been aimed at an audience of a number close to the ten millions.