Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site pucc-k
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!cbosgd!ihnp4!inuxc!pur-ee!CS-Mordred!Pucc-H:Pucc-I:Pucc-K:ag5
From: ag5@pucc-k (Basket Case)
Newsgroups: net.legal,net.women
Subject: Re: The Anti-porn ordinance IS pornography (You'll enjoy this)
Message-ID: <747@pucc-k>
Date: Thu, 27-Dec-84 16:43:36 EST
Article-I.D.: pucc-k.747
Posted: Thu Dec 27 16:43:36 1984
Date-Received: Fri, 28-Dec-84 07:51:19 EST
References: <249@ahuta.UUCP> <238@looking.UUCP>
Organization: Tower Acres Pleasure Center
Lines: 27

<<>>

>It states explicitly in that ordinance that a woman's contract to engage
>in a pornographic photo session can in now way be enforced.  The men
>involved in the session, however, are deemed fully capapble of entering
>into the contracts.   Thus we see that in a matter of sexually explicit
>material, women are demeaned to the status of children, while men are not.
>-- 
>Brad Templeton, Looking Glass Software Ltd. - Waterloo, Ontario 519/884-7473

	So if (for some bizarre reason) a group of women wanted to enter
the porn business *on their own*, their products would not be covered by
this ordinance?  This is what it seems like to me...

	I would hope that every woman in Minnesota (or wherever this
ordinance is up for grabs at) protests this for all that it's worth.
This ordinance sets society back a few hundred years or so.  

	And I thought we were making progress...  

-- 
------------------------------------------------------------------
Henry C. Mensch |  User Confuser | Purdue University User Services
{ihnp4|decvax|ucbvax|seismo|purdue|cbosgd|harpo}!pur-ee!pucc-i!ag5
------------------------------------------------------------------
              "Never eat more than you can lift!"
				-- Miss Piggy