To: bedolido
I suppose some people would consider it "porn", but a naked female, just standing there does not comport with any rational definition of "porn", Potter Stewart notwithstanding. Inappropriate, yes. Bad, probably. Porn, no.
7 posted on
12/30/2004 6:26:16 AM PST by
jammer
To: jammer
a naked female, just standing there does not comport with any rational definition of "porn"It does, however, comport with the definition of "invitation".
WHOO HOO WHOO HOO WHOO HOOOOOOO
10 posted on
12/30/2004 6:28:06 AM PST by
Lazamataz
("Stay well - Stay safe - Stay armed - Yorktown" -- harpseal)
To: jammer
a naked female, just standing there does not comport with any rational definition of "porn"Would Helen Thomas be considered obscenity?
11 posted on
12/30/2004 6:29:48 AM PST by
Tijeras_Slim
(Happy New Year!)
To: jammer
porn is in the eye of the beholder. but to (loosely) quote Raymond: anything that "activates the launch sequence" can be called porn, but isn't that what it's all about?
12 posted on
12/30/2004 6:30:34 AM PST by
bedolido
(I can forgive you for killing my sons, but I cannot forgive you for forcing me to kill your sons)
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson