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