Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site unc.unc.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!bonnie!akgua!mcnc!unc!fsks
From: fsks@unc.UUCP (Frank Silbermann)
Newsgroups: net.women
Subject: Re: Just a couple of thoughts on Pornography
Message-ID: <410@unc.unc.UUCP>
Date: Sun, 27-Oct-85 01:27:35 EST
Article-I.D.: unc.410
Posted: Sun Oct 27 01:27:35 1985
Date-Received: Mon, 28-Oct-85 03:30:58 EST
References: <732@utai.UUCP> <909@utcs.uucp> <504@scirtp.UUCP> <12506@rochester.UUCP> <32373@lanl.ARPA>
Reply-To: fsks@unc.UUCP (Frank Silbermann)
Organization: CS Dept, U. of N. Carolina, Chapel Hill
Lines: 22
Summary: 


>>It's in the dictionary, look it up.  If porn was not defined, then
>>it wouldn't be in the dictionary, in fact, it wouldn't be a word.

Charlie Sorsby:
>From the American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language:
>   pornography	n.  Written, graphic or other forms of communication
>		    intended to excite lascivious feelings.

In other words, "pornography" is a synonym for _erotica_.

I can see why religious people have long tried to ban pornography.
Pornography make living a holy lifestyle more difficult.  It demeans
women by insinuating that they enjoy the same evil animal desires as men.

On the other hand, magazines like "True Detective" (with cover photo
of a psychopath holding a knife to the throat of a bound and gagged
young woman) is OK.  After all, these were around even before pornography
was legalized.

	Sarcasticly,
	Frank Silbermann