> 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.
I don't mean that porn is "whatever gets anyone off" -- obviously, "pornography" in the ordinary sense of the term refers to written or graphic material (hence the Greek root -graphy). But pictures of feet and shoes could certainly be pornography to foot fetishists (or so I suppose -- I'm not of that persuasion myself).
Anyway, I suppose I should bow out of this discussion, since I entered it under the misapprehension that it was about pornography as we ordinary folks understand the term. Carrol has since kindly explained that it was actually a discussion among literary critics, and since I am not qualified to enter that rarified atmosphere, I'll leave the thread to the qualified experts in that field.
Jon Johanning // jjohanning at igc.org __________________________________ When I was a little boy, I had but a little wit, 'Tis a long time ago, and I have no more yet; Nor ever ever shall, until that I die, For the longer I live the more fool am I. -- Wit and Mirth, an Antidote against Melancholy (1684)