Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.3 4.3bsd-beta 6/6/85; site ptsfa.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxr!mhuxt!houxm!vax135!cornell!uw-beaver!tektronix!hplabs!well!ptsfa!rob
From: rob@ptsfa.UUCP (Rob Bernardo)
Newsgroups: net.motss
Subject: Re: coming out at work, and misc.(pornography)
Message-ID: <900@ptsfa.UUCP>
Date: Fri, 27-Sep-85 00:57:41 EDT
Article-I.D.: ptsfa.900
Posted: Fri Sep 27 00:57:41 1985
Date-Received: Sun, 29-Sep-85 08:22:46 EDT
References: <70@ucdavis.UUCP> <870@utcs.uucp> <707@hou2d.UUCP> <881@utcs.uucp>
Reply-To: rob@ptsfa.UUCP (Rob Bernardo)
Organization: Pacific Bell, San Francisco
Lines: 9

In article <881@utcs.uucp> flaps@utcs.UUCP (Alan J Rosenthal) writes:
>  But my original
>idea still remains valid.. pornography is degrading of its subject matter.  It
>presents sex as something totally devoid of love, caresses, or anything other
>than orgasms, basically.  Or if not just orgasms, then exclusively heavy-duty
>sex.
Why is sex without love degrading? Do you feel that there's something
bad about sex that EVEN IN ITS DEPICTION it needs to be combined with
explicit depictions of expressions of love to make it "okay"?


Brought to you by Super Global Mega Corp .com