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