Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 (Tek) 9/28/84 based on 9/17/84; site tekecs.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxr!mhuxt!houxm!vax135!cornell!uw-beaver!tektronix!orca!tekecs!jeffw
From: jeffw@tekecs.UUCP (Jeff Winslow)
Newsgroups: net.women,net.politics
Subject: A suggestion for a ground rule in any pornography debate
Message-ID: <5660@tekecs.UUCP>
Date: Tue, 3-Sep-85 14:33:07 EDT
Article-I.D.: tekecs.5660
Posted: Tue Sep  3 14:33:07 1985
Date-Received: Thu, 5-Sep-85 07:38:18 EDT
Distribution: net
Organization: Tektronix, Wilsonville OR
Lines: 21
Xref: watmath net.women:7292 net.politics:10809

One suggestion would be, "end it", since this was all hashed over not
so many moons ago.

But seriously, I suggest this rule: Anyone who contributes an article
concerning pornography must give examples or otherwise specify what
they consider to be pornography and what they consider to be erotica.
Or what they consider should be allowed and what should not.

Otherwise, people will just argue with hordes of straw men and we will see
flames that will make the PMS silliness seem like a game of hopscotch.

I'm moved to post this after reading Ellen Eades's article. I was wondering
how she could possibly believe as she does until I came to the last 
paragraph, where it became apparent that she considers pornography to
be typefied by scenes with whips and burning. It all became quite
reasonable (although my own opinion is closer to Todd Jones's) after that.

Personally, when I think "pornography", I think of "Playboy", which
I have enjoyed in the past, and which is hardly in the same league.
Ellen's pornography I call "gaak!".
						Jeff Winslow