BTW you can buy sex toys in Alabama-- Re: [lbo-talk] Re: Sexuality Under Seige or So What Else is New?

Nathan Newman nathanne at nathannewman.org
Sat Jul 31 07:51:17 PDT 2004


----- Original Message ----- From: "Christian Gregory" <christian11 at mindspring.com>
>Call me an anti-consumerist puritan, but if your sexuality is completely
>dependent on shopping,
-First, there is no moment before prefab toys. The Greeks had dildos, though they liked fisting too. -And they didn't always use their hands for spanking. And even if there were, S&M as we -understand it originated at a moment--let's say 17th and 18th century Europe--when there -were plenty of prefab toys. -Second: Don't you think equating sexuality based on toys with sexuality based on shopping is pretty cheap? --You write as if we could all just make our own, or we should just use big cucumbers and cattails.

Actually, the law doesn't require you to make your own. As long as a vibrator isn't marketed specifically for sexual stimulation, it can be sold in Alabama.

As the Court states in the decision, "the statute permits the sale of ordinary vibrators and body massagers that, although useful as sexual aids, are not 'designed or marketed . . . primarily' for that particular purpose. Id. Finally, the statute exempts sales of sexual devices 'for a bona fide medical, scientific, educational, legislative, judicial, or law enforcement purpose.'"

Here's what you can still do in Alabama. You can mail order in a sex toy from another state. You can purchase it in that other state and bring it into Alabama. You can in fact buy a sex toy in Alabama, as long as it's not marketed as such. And of course, free speech protects the right of non-profit organizations to note the fact that those vibrators, though not marketed for their sexual uses, can actually be used for such sexual enjoyment.

So basically all that is banned under the statute is advertising by the market or seller of the product that a "vibrating massager" has this nifty other use when applied to sexual organs.

Given all that, I just find it hard to take seriously the argument that the rights suppressed by this decision are on the same order as bans on abortion or on consensual gay sex.

I still think the law's dumb, but if Alabamans don't like seeing sexually explicit dildo advertisements in their local newspapers, I think it's just incredibly stupid left tactics to make a stand on that issue or encourage courts to override popular laws in that area.

Nathan Newman



More information about the lbo-talk mailing list