> but is it "porn"? i would argue that any definition of porn that
> includes chaucer is probably too broad to be useful, at least without
> major subdivisions that distinguish, say, chaucer from, say, debbie
> does dallas 3 (or 1 or 2, for that matter. and not on the basis of how
> "literary" they are, but as "genres".
My theory of porn: porn is in the eye of the beholder. As we all know, underwear ads are porn to some people and not to others.
Jon Johanning // jjohanning at igc.org __________________________________ A gentleman haranguing on the perfection of our law, and that it was equally open to the poor and the rich, was answered by another, 'So is the London Tavern.' -- "Tom Paine's Jests..." (1794); also attr. to John Horne Tooke (1736-1812) by Hazlitt