 I draw attention to the two-stages of the definition to reinforce a point made in section 1: that one might agree with Dworkin and MacKinnon that pornography, defined purely functionally or conceptually as sexually explicit material that subordinates women, would be a bad thing, and yet disagree that the material with the features that they go on to list in fact does this. (This might help to defuse some of the frequently acrimonious debate in feminist circles surrounding MacKinnon’s now famous claim that one cannot genuinely be a feminist and be pro-, or at least fail to be anti-, pornography. Feminists are, of course, opposed to anything that subordinates or oppresses women. Yet there is surely room for reasonable disagreement about what, if any, sexually explicit material does this, and whether pursuing legal regulation of it is a desirable feminist strategy.)