Plus, it is to inform the audience who are not feminists because the feminists must have known about this situation, of pornography. Mainly towards the men or other females in this world.
Dworkin definitely makes strong points with her personal life but some are not relevant. Like on page 534 where she says she baby-sat and "in any middle-class home one could always find dirty books" (Selzer). Yeah sure great, she found them but come to think of it, she mustve been deliberately looking for them. So the question now is, why would a teenager look for those specific books? Furthermore, she jumps from the intro into her earlier life without having a clear claim. As close as her claim comes, it seems to appear right at the beginning of her essay: "determined to destroy the pornography industry" (Selzer 534). She doesnt seem to have any legitimate reason to back up her .
stance. If she so believes that pornography and prostitution is so wrong then why in the world did she "trade sex for money" (Selzer 535)? Her syntax was not .
in any particular organization, which made it hard to locate and distinguish reason from evidence. Dworkin goes on to say she "would do virtually anything to get women out of prostitution and pornography" (Selzer 536). But what she doesnt realize is that the women that are involved with these businesses were not coerced. These women fully understand the nature of the performance, signed a contract and release, there were witnesses, were under no threat, and were fully paid. Now think about it, does this sound like coercion?.
It is without a doubt that Dworkin uses her personal life to illustrate her reasoning. All of her reasons and evidence were either from opinions or personal observations, which make them weak. Perhaps, the reason she put all her personal experiences in the essay is because she's trying to use Ad Misericordiam (appeal to pity). If readers pity her then they would stand behind her view.
