Feminists advocating for anti-pornography claim that no "healthy" woman would consent to pornography. The author of the Ordinance, MacKinnon, explains her reasoning, "in the context of unequal power (between the sexes), one needs to think about the meaning of consent - whether it is a meaningful concept at all.".
What happened to, "a woman's body, a woman's right," the recognizing of a woman's control of her own body, which feminists have fought for over the past centuries (i.e. 1920, Universal Suffrage granted in the US). These arguments basically say that even written consent of adult women on a formal contract with witnesses, is not enough consent a woman can give to use her own body as she desires. What if we didn't even recognize such extensive consent for two persons to engage in sex? That would be preposterous. Ordinances like the one passed in Minneapolis treat women like children. Children are protected from pornography because they are too young and thus incapable of giving consent to use their own bodies. But now, anti-porn advocates go too far as to say that adults are incapable of such a consent of their own bodies. A radical feminist states this point well, "With regard to rape, radical feminists still declare, "No means no." But on some sexual matters, saying "yes" apparently means nothing. Pornography could not degrade women more than this attitude does" (McElroy). Being able to consent your body is the first step of sovereignty of yourself. When we have control of ourselves, then we have the freedom of expression given to us by the first amendment of our U.S. Constitution.
The second major point of attacks made by anti-porn advocates is upon porn being the guilty advocate of sexual aggression made upon women. They argue that exposure to porn leads men to commit acts of rape and sexual violence upon women. First off, to this date, there is no substantial scientific evidence that proves exposure to pornography leads to sexual violence.