A U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, which ruled the law unconstitutional, rightly believes the definition is not as clean-cut as MacKinnon thinks. But don't just trust the courts. Ask the experts what impact they think censoring erotica would have on any community.

Or ask the previously mentioned artist who painted a women's mid-section. In accordance with the ordinance, females cannot be exhibited if they are reduced to mere body parts. The artist and any gallery where her work is shown could potentially be fined under the MacKinnon-Dworkin law if some court finds the picture sexually dehumanizing.

Just ask the organizers of the MIT-Harvard symposium who planned a slide program showing sexually explicit, pornographic images to the conference's participants for educational purposes. Because of MIT campus guidelines, the feminists, some of whom support the Cambridge referendum, could not exhibit the slides without prior approval from the university six weeks in advance.

Though the women moved the slide presentation down the street to Harvard, it's ironic that these feminists were trapped by their own reasoning and were not able to show explicit images for a legitimate reason.

Other feminists at the conference agreed that the ban's wording is entirely too ambiguous and potentially damaging to the very women who fight against violent pornography.

"People who don't care about the women's movement have adopted this ordinance as theirs," says Nancy Ryan of the Cambridge Commission on the Status of Women. "They want to remove from circulation publications like 'Our Bodies, Ourselves,' which have been the cornerstones of the women's movement."

Noted feminist and author Kate Millet accurately described the moral quandry many of us face over the banning of sexually explicit materials we find offensive.

"If you don't like the ordinance, and still dislike pornography, what are you going to do about it?" asked the self-proclaimed artist, anarchist and lover of free speech. "If I don't support the ordinance does that mean I'm a pro-pornography hound? No."

MacKinnon is undoubtedly a brilliant orator and a true pioneer in the women's movement. But unfortunately, her shortsighted political acumen has divided that movement, alienated male feminists and failed to address in a practical manner the social problem that is pornography.

Sorry, MacKinnon, but don't expect Cambridge to give up its Venus de Milo's and D.H. Lawrence novels without a fight.