Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site duke.UUCP Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!allegra!bellcore!decvax!mcnc!duke!crm From: crm@duke.UUCP (Charlie Martin) Newsgroups: net.books,net.sf-lovers Subject: Re: The Pornography Ordinance-Some books that it bans: Message-ID: <5219@duke.UUCP> Date: Mon, 7-Jan-85 12:46:37 EST Article-I.D.: duke.5219 Posted: Mon Jan 7 12:46:37 1985 Date-Received: Fri, 11-Jan-85 05:01:56 EST References: <3204@alice.UUCP>, <448@ukma.UUCP> Organization: Duke University Lines: 19 Xref: watmath net.books:1185 net.sf-lovers:5518 Come to think of it, there are a lot of things in the Bible that seem to suggest that women should be treated as property, subjected to the will of men, etc. Including sexually, as where it is commanded that a man whose brother dies childless should marry the brother's sister, in order to make sure that someone carries on the brother's line... no suggestion that the surviving brother should ASK first. It would be really interesting to see a Christian bookstore owner arrested for selling porn on these grounds -- I don't expect to see it happen, but I can dream. P.S. I agree with Tim; we're talking here about censorship, not about ``women's issues'' -- and I feel that restricting my right to read ``pornography'' is NOT a women's issue! Keep the discussion here. -- Opinions stated here are my own and are unrelated. Charlie Martin (...mcnc!duke!crm)