Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site lanl.ARPA Path: utzoo!linus!decvax!decwrl!greipa!pesnta!phri!cmcl2!lanl!crs From: crs@lanl.ARPA Newsgroups: net.women Subject: Re: Just a couple of thoughts on Pornography Message-ID: <32373@lanl.ARPA> Date: Thu, 24-Oct-85 11:58:07 EDT Article-I.D.: lanl.32373 Posted: Thu Oct 24 11:58:07 1985 Date-Received: Sat, 26-Oct-85 06:48:12 EDT References: <732@utai.UUCP> <909@utcs.uucp> <504@scirtp.UUCP> <12506@rochester.UUCP> Organization: Los Alamos National Laboratory Lines: 29 >> >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. All this talk of porn >being in the bible and if you censored porn most of the bible would be censored >as well is pure unintelligible garbage. Porn is porn is porn period. As you >can see, I don't feel like playing semantics today. From the American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language: pornography n. Written, graphic or other forms of communication intended to excite lascivious feelings. By whose lascivious feelings shall we judge? What if your favorite book or movie excites lascivious feelings in me? Shall we ban it? I don't feel like "playing semantics" either but the problem that you and many others seem eager to ignore is that this is *just* such a semantic[1] problem. *Whose* meaning do we accept? This (or any other) definition just doesn't mean the same thing to everyone. It is certainly not an adequate criterion for banning a book, photograph, painting, motion picture, sculpture ... ---------- [1] "It's in the dictionary, look it up." -- All opinions are mine alone... Charlie Sorsby ...!{cmcl2,ihnp4,...}!lanl!crs crs@lanl.arpa