Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site druxo.UUCP Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxr!ihnp4!drutx!druxo!nap From: nap@druxo.UUCP (Parsons) Newsgroups: net.books,net.legal,net.women Subject: Re: Pornography doesn't degrade anybody Message-ID: <776@druxo.UUCP> Date: Fri, 11-Jan-85 10:19:03 EST Article-I.D.: druxo.776 Posted: Fri Jan 11 10:19:03 1985 Date-Received: Sat, 12-Jan-85 05:49:38 EST References: <351@ahuta.UUCP> Organization: AT&T Information Systems Laboratories, Denver Lines: 16 Xref: watmath net.books:1197 net.legal:1280 net.women:4039 >This is not to say degradation cannot exist in porn, simply >that sex/nudity per se DOES NOT CONSTITUTE DEGRADATION. >Dale Has anyone said that sex/nudity per se constitutes degradation? If they did, I missed it... Perhaps what is being said is that sex becomes porn when degradation is mixed in. Then the problem becomes: what is degrading? And again, we won't agree and hence, a legally useful definition escapes us. Nancy Parsons AT&T ISL Denver, CO druxo!nap