New meanings for pornogra phy?

[Laurence Horn]

At 8:35 AM -0800 10/30/06, Arnold M. Zwicky wrote:
>
>similar restrictions apply to images on postcards (with exceptions
>made for works of art, especially recognized masterworks).  i know
>about these restrictions because one of my artistic activities is
>creating "XXX-rated comic homoerotic collages", some of which get
>turned into postcards; the issue is then which ones have to go inside
>an envelope to avoid the unwanted attentions of the USPS.  rules as
>above: buttocks fine, etc. (and breasts are ok for women).  i am
>cautious about erections visible (clearly and in detail) through
>clothing, though these appear with some frequency on the covers of
>magazines (the latest Genre, for example) and catalogues (for
>Undergear, for example); some of them seem just too outrageous.
>
It could be argued by defense counsel informed by Mae West that the
guy may have just had a gun in his pocket (after all, even undergear
has pockets...)

As far as intuitions about what counts as pornography in ordinary
language (as opposed to a courtroom), I agree with Ron that any
definition that entails the impossibility of hardcore lesbian
pornography based solely on the membership of the set of possible
penetrators on display must inevitably come up short.

LH

------------------------------------------------------------
The American Dialect Society - http://www.americandialect.org