Re: [UUPoly-L] Stirring the cultural cauldron

["David Hall" <airsafe1@comcast.net>]

The distinction is a legal one. Obscene has a legal definition, porn does
not. The right tends to use porn to equal obscene, painting all erotica as
evil and illegal. Very few cases that go to court are found obscene, based
on community values. That is why all the money spent fighting porn by W is
wasted, juries won't find stuff obscene.

Dave 

-----Original Message-----
From: uupoly-l-bounces+airsafe1=comcast.net@uupa.org
[mailto:uupoly-l-bounces+airsafe1=comcast.net@uupa.org] On Behalf Of
wabaldwin@aol.com
Sent: Wednesday, December 19, 2007 4:53 PM
To: uupoly-l@uupa.org
Subject: Re: [UUPoly-L] Stirring the cultural cauldron


 I don't equate "pornographic" with "obscene."

For me, pornography is sexual in nature.

But obscene can also be something non-sexual -- I looked it up once, a long
time ago -- "foul" or "disgusting" (but I guess it's more than just that).

A crucifix in a glass of urine might be "obscene" but not "pornographic".

Bill


 


 

-----Original Message-----
From: David Hall <airsafe1@comcast.net>
To: uupoly-l@uupa.org
Sent: Wed, 19 Dec 2007 1:38 pm
Subject: Re: [UUPoly-L] Stirring the cultural cauldron










In the immortal words of a Supreme Court Justice "I know it when I see it."
There is no legal definition of Pornography (the legal word is obscene), but
often defined as the writing of whores. Erotica, as well, is hard to define
for everyone, but we know it when we see it. In general, they both mean
designed to arouse, and we all know how bad being aroused can be for us, we
might have pleasure, a terrible sin. Don't ask me to define sin.

Have not kissed any frogs lately, but willing to if I think the odds are
good. But how do we define frogs, CW?

Dave, in a silly mood.

-----Original Message-----
From: uupoly-l-bounces+airsafe1=comcast.net@uupa.org
[mailto:uupoly-l-bounces+airsafe1=comcast.net@uupa.org] On Behalf Of
wabaldwin@aol.com
Sent: Wednesday, December 19, 2007 11:41 AM
To: uupoly-l@uupa.org
Subject: Re: [UUPoly-L] Stirring the cultural cauldron


 I disagree with the statement that "pornography debases and objectifies
women".

I think it can be true, but not necessarilly.

However....did I miss a definition of "pornography?"

If someone did define it here, what was it?

How do we tell "erotica" from "pornography?"

Anyone?

Bill


 


 

-----Original Message-----
From: jay m <marcus_t_cicero@hotmail.com>
To: uupoly-l@uupa.org
Sent: Wed, 19 Dec 2007 11:31 am
Subject: [UUPoly-L] Stirring the cultural cauldron










<snip>
 
My only intent was to point out that porn and polyamory are not correlated
and that was the gist of the previous post. Also, whether you like it or
not, pornography debased and objectifies women. Cosmopolitan and Glamour,
along with a great deal of TV, are simply Playboy and Hustler dressed to
look like a pig. 
 
<snip>




________________________________________________________________________
More new features than ever.  Check out the new AOL Mail ! -
http://webmail.aol.com _______________________________________________
The UUPoly-L mailing list has public archives.
Please keep that in mind when deciding how much to reveal about yourself.
UUPoly-L mailing list
UUPoly-L@uupa.org
http://www.uupa.org/mailman/listinfo/uupoly-l



_______________________________________________
The UUPoly-L mailing list has public archives.
Please keep that in mind when deciding how much to reveal about yourself.
UUPoly-L mailing list
UUPoly-L@uupa.org
http://www.uupa.org/mailman/listinfo/uupoly-l



 


________________________________________________________________________
More new features than ever.  Check out the new AOL Mail ! -
http://webmail.aol.com _______________________________________________
The UUPoly-L mailing list has public archives.
Please keep that in mind when deciding how much to reveal about yourself.
UUPoly-L mailing list
UUPoly-L@uupa.org
http://www.uupa.org/mailman/listinfo/uupoly-l