On Wednesday, February 4, 2004, at 01:12 PM, Jon Johanning wrote:
> On Wednesday, February 4, 2004, at 08:29 AM, Jeffrey Fisher wrote:
>
>> 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.
>
underwear ads may be arousing (for some people and/or under certain circumstances), but porn as "whatever gets anyone off" doesn't help us, either, i don't think. if i get off on feet and shoes, does that make shoe departments porn shops? i'm surprised this way of trying to define it hasn't outraged carrol.
j