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