PDA

View Full Version : Republican tries to ban sex toys?


banyon
04-23-2006, 09:41 AM
Bill would make sale of sex toys illegal in South Carolina
By SEANNA ADCOX
The Associated Press
April 21, 2006

COLUMBIA — Lucy’s Love Shop employee Wanda Gillespie said she was flabbergasted that South Carolina’s Legislature is considering outlawing sex toys.

But banning the sale of sex toys is actually quite common in some Southern states.

The South Carolina bill, proposed by Republican Rep. Ralph Davenport, would make it a felony to sell devices used primarily for sexual stimulation and allow law enforcement to seize sex toys from raided businesses.

"That would be the most terrible thing in the world," said Ms. Gillespie, an employee the Anderson shop. "That is just flabbergasting to me. We are supposed to be in a free country, and we’re supposed to be adults who can decide what want to do and don’t want to do in the privacy of our own homes."

Ms. Gillespie, 49, said she has worked in the store for nearly 20 years and has seen people from every walk of life, including "every Sunday churchgoers."

"I know of multiple marriages that sex toys have sold because some people need that. The people who are riding us (the adult novelty industry) so hard are probably at home buying it (sex toys and novelties) on the Internet. It’s ridiculous."
The measure would add sex toys to the state’s obscenity laws, which already prohibit the dissemination and advertisement of obscene materials.

People convicted under obscenity laws face up to five years in prison and a $10,000 fine.

South Carolina law borrows from a 1973 U.S. Supreme Court ruling to define obscene as something "contemporary community standards" determine as "patently offensive" sexual conduct, which "lacks serious literary, artistic, political or scientific value."

Sugar ‘N Spice manager Pat Irons says a proposal to outlaw the sale of sex toys in South Carolina is outrageous.

While Davenport’s proposal is probably aimed at shutting down X-rated adult bookstores, Ms. Irons said, it hurts customers of "couples-oriented" stores such as her West Columbia shop, which sells everything from lingerie to bridal shower novelties to lotions.

At Sugar ‘N Spice, sex toys are displayed in a separate room. Buyers include men and women who "need a little help" because surgery or medical problems are affecting their marriage, Ms. Irons said.

"We’ve been selling these sex toys for 27 years," she said Friday. "Even pastors shop in here. They send couples in here they counsel for marriage problems. It’s probably going to hit people like that harder than people realize."

A Townville sex shop owner questioned the proposal’s legality.

"I don’t think that would be fair," said John Terezakis, owner of Paradise! in Townville. "It’s depriving people of their freedom of choice. I don’t think the customers would appreciate it very much."

Rep. Davenport, who is from Spartanburg County, did not return several messages Friday to talk about his bill, which was introduced last month. No other legislator has signed on as a co-sponsor and its passage this year seems unlikely.

Recent police raids in Rep. Davenport’s county have targeted adult-oriented businesses.

The sheriff’s office there seized movies, sex toys, sexual-enhancement pills and surveillance tapes from two businesses in January.

One of the stores, Priscilla’s, sued the sheriff’s office, claiming the raid violated constitutional rights and asked for the return of the seized items. Sheriff Chuck Wright refused.

The case has not yet gone to trial, Maj. Dan Johnson said.

Maj. Johnson said he knew nothing of Rep. Davenport’s proposal and was unsure how it could help their investigations, which involve undercover detectives renting movies or buying magazines and prosecutors determining whether they’re obscene.

"We’re focused on the hard-core magazines, videos ... the hard-core porn," he said.

Other states that ban the sell of sex toys include Alabama, Georgia, Mississippi and Texas, said Mark Lopez, an attorney for the American Civil Liberties Union.

Alabama’s law banning the sale of sex toys has been circulating through the courts since its passage in 1998. U.S. District Judge Lynwood Smith Jr. twice ruled against the law, holding that it violated the constitutional right to privacy, but the state won both times on appeal.

In February 2005, the U.S. Supreme Court declined to hear the case, which is back in the lower courts.

"People think it’s distasteful. It makes for good campaign fodder and panders to the conservative side of people. That’s why we see the laws in the South," Mr. Lopez said.

The ACLU got involved in the case, he said, to "keep the government out of the bedroom."

Though the laws don’t punish people for owning sex toys, banning their sale is a backdoor attempt to discourage their use, Mr. Lopez said.

"People have a fundamental right to engage in lawful sexual practices in the privacy of their home," Mr. Lopez said. "It’s not like this stuff is available in Macy’s. Kids aren’t allowed in. You or I wouldn’t accidentally walk into one."

http://www.independentmail.com/and/home/article/0,1886,AND_8195_4641568,00.html

banyon
04-23-2006, 09:41 AM
seriously, some of these legislators need to seek counseling or get laid.

patteeu
04-23-2006, 09:55 AM
It's dumb, just like it's dumb to try to get rid of SUVs.

mlyonsd
04-23-2006, 10:17 AM
"We’re focused on the hard-core magazines, videos ... the hard-core porn," he said.



They've gone too far when they go after one of my favorite "art" forms.

Mr. Laz
04-23-2006, 10:19 AM
sex is bad ... sex is teh debbil

Bowser
04-23-2006, 10:22 AM
Ralph probably had a real bad experience at an S&M shop, and is abusing his "power" to cleanse his soul.

Adept Havelock
04-23-2006, 10:23 AM
It's dumb, just like it's dumb to try to get rid of SUVs.

On this day of April 23, 2006, let it be known throught all the nations, patteeu and I have found a point on which we agree wholeheartedly! :thumb:

Sounds to me that this nutter is terrified that some women might figure out that sex isn't necessarily bad, but can be enjoyable. If that happens, this loon would actually have to worry about pleasing a woman, and he'd probably be completely lost. What else do you expect from a "puritanical" bedsheet sniffer like that? ROFL

Dave Lane
04-23-2006, 01:24 PM
Actually a truer corellation then would be to impose a tax of say 20% of its value. (ie $8,000) on an SUV. Or $15 on a $75 sex toy.

Dave

banyon
04-23-2006, 01:54 PM
It's dumb, just like it's dumb to try to get rid of SUVs.


Hey!, I believe that's actually a libertarian position you're taking. :D

Chiefs Express
04-23-2006, 02:45 PM
If you are really worried about it, go to SC and clear up the issue with your wit and intellect. I'm sure you will go far in the fight.

If you aren't planning to go to SC, why do you give a shit?

patteeu
04-23-2006, 03:37 PM
Hey!, I believe that's actually a libertarian position you're taking. :D

ROFL It had to happen sooner or later.

Lake
04-23-2006, 03:45 PM
I think that people might worry about what happens in SC because it could catch on in other parts of the US.

Chiefs Express
04-23-2006, 04:42 PM
I think that people might worry about what happens in SC because it could catch on in other parts of the US.

I seriously doubt that it will take hold outside of the biblebelt.

Lake
04-23-2006, 04:46 PM
Look at Kansas.

Adept Havelock
04-23-2006, 04:48 PM
If you aren't planning to go to SC, why do you give a shit?


Flippant Response-1950's version:If you aren't planning to go to SC, why worry about segregation and miscegenation laws?

Serious Response: Because any egregious Governmental restriction of personal freedoms and choices that harm no one else is cause for concern to any free person. Where no one is harmed, the government has no concerns over what two consenting adults do in privacy, nor what they use when they do.

If this was because "sex toys" were being sold where children could have access, then they would have a case. It's not. It's purely a pattern of piqued prigs pushing personal prudish-ness on people, per being preposterously ill-prepared to persuade the populi.
:harumph:

Chiefs Express
04-23-2006, 04:54 PM
Look at Kansas.

That particular law wouldn't bother me in the slightest.

Chiefs Express
04-23-2006, 04:56 PM
Flippant Response-1950's version:If you aren't planning to go to SC, why worry about segregation and miscegenation laws?

Serious Response: Because any egregious Governmental restriction of personal freedoms and choices that harm no one else is cause for concern. Where no one is harmed, the government has no concerns over what two consenting adults do in privacy, nor what they use when they do.

If this was because "sex toys" were being sold where children could have access, then they would have a case. It's not. It's purely a pattern of piqued prigs pushing personal prudish-ness on people, per being preposterously ill-prepared to persuade the populi.

Considering that this is not 1950 your response is moot.

What you see as personal freedoms I see as immoral sexual devices.

I wouldn't vote for a law to ban them but I also wouldn't vote to let them stay.

It's a case of personal preference and moral standing.

Lake
04-23-2006, 04:58 PM
It might bother you if it were just a start.

Adept Havelock
04-23-2006, 04:59 PM
Considering that this is not 1950 your response is moot.
Indeed. Hence my use of the word "flippant". :shake:


What you see as personal freedoms I see as immoral sexual devices.

I wouldn't vote for a law to ban them but I also wouldn't vote to let them stay.

It's a case of personal preference and moral standing.

Thank you for (unintentionally?) agreeing with my case. It is a personal preference. A matter of personal choice. Not a governmental one.

Chiefs Express
04-23-2006, 05:00 PM
Thank you for (unintentionally?) agreeing with my case. It is a personal preference. A matter of personal choice. Not a governmental one.

If the government passes a law banning it I guess you would be wrong.

I'm speaking on my personal view, not that of SC or any other state that might want to ban that type of activity.

After all, even if that law is passed those in SC can order their stuff from California where no law as such would ever even be broached.

Chiefs Express
04-23-2006, 05:01 PM
It might bother you if it were just a start.

Not really. I don't think those devices do anything other than promote immorality. If it's not there who is going to be harmed?

Adept Havelock
04-23-2006, 05:07 PM
Not really. I don't think those devices do anything other than promote immorality. If it's not there who is going to be harmed?

If it is, then who is going to be harmed? If you had a study proving this "harm" or direct link between immorality and the sale/use of "sex toys", you might have an intellectual leg to stand your argument on. If not, it's just your personal preference. In a free republic, why should your personal preferences be legislated over anothers? If it's a matter of "community values", why not let the community decide with a referendum, as opposed to an arbitrary decision by the government?

Unless you are simply concerned with what consenting adults other than yourselves do in private? If so, doesn't that qualify you as just another Gladys Kravitz?

Just like many so-called "conservatives", you seem to want big government done away with, except when it comes to what other people do in privacy that you find personally offensive. Then it's OK.:rolleyes:

Personally, I don't care for them. The difference is, I don't think it's the States business to tell people if they can buy or use them or not. Of course, I'm not a selective "big-government" conservative.

BTW- Mail-order transactions are still considered illegal under those state laws.

Chiefs Express
04-23-2006, 05:24 PM
If it is, then who is going to be harmed? If you had a study proving this "harm" or direct link between immorality and the sale/use of "sex toys", you might have an intellectual leg to stand your argument on. If not, it's just your personal preference. In a free republic, why should your personal preferences be legislated over anothers? If it's a matter of "community values", why not let the community decide with a referendum, as opposed to an arbitrary decision by the government?

Unless you are simply concerned with what consenting adults other than yourselves do in private? If so, doesn't that qualify you as just another Gladys Kravitz?

Just like many so-called "conservatives", you seem to want big government done away with, except when it comes to what other people do in privacy that you find personally offensive. Then it's OK.:rolleyes:

Personally, I don't care for them. The difference is, I don't think it's the States business to tell people if they can buy or use them or not. Of course, I'm not a selective "big-government" conservative.

BTW- Mail-order transactions are still considered illegal under those state laws.

You read alot into a single sentence.

Let's just say that I don't approve and don't care if you do.

Adept Havelock
04-23-2006, 06:07 PM
You read alot into a single sentence.

Let's just say that I don't approve and don't care if you do.

But you obviously don't mind if big government decides for you.

Interesting "conservative" position.
:rolleyes:

Chiefs Express
04-23-2006, 06:32 PM
But you obviously don't mind if big government decides for you.

Interesting "conservative" position.


That's just it, big government didn't decide for me, I did. If you don't stand for something you'll fall for anything.

FWIW, big government hasn't made that decision in SC yet either. That's just like a liberal, jumping the gun before the race is started.

Adept Havelock
04-23-2006, 06:46 PM
If you don't stand for something you'll fall for anything.
Bumper-sticker philosophy. What a surprise.
FWIW, big government hasn't made that decision in SC yet either. That's just like a liberal, jumping the gun before the race is started.

It doesn't directly affect me, but it's none the less a matter of principle.

If it's being considered by the government, the "race" has already started.
I guess you wait until a problem occurs before you take steps to prevent it. It's called being proactive, look into it. It's always served me well. ;)

Chiefs Express
04-23-2006, 07:37 PM
Bumper-sticker philosophy. What a surprise.

It doesn't directly affect me, but it's none the less a matter of principle.

If it's being considered by the government, the "race" has already started.
I guess you wait until a problem occurs before you take steps to prevent it. It's called being proactive, look into it. It's always served me well.
Not a bumper sticker, learned it in church. Go figure!


I don't see depriving the world of smut a problem. If you do, that's your choice.

This isn't the fed as you seem to be trying to elude to, it's a state government. If you feel the problem is going to be systemic then by all means jump on your bandwaggon and do something.

Long before anything that would have an impact on me would happen I'd be long gone...as in 6' under. In other words, before what you fear comes to pass we will all more than likely be dead and our grand kids or further down the road will have to deal with it.

FWIW, I think you are pissing up a rope about a situation that isn't going anywhere.

Adept Havelock
04-23-2006, 07:46 PM
Not a bumper sticker, learned it in church. Go figure!

One does not preclude the other.

I don't see depriving the world of smut a problem.
"Smut", like "Obscenity", "Beauty", "Art" and myriad other subjective concepts, are in the eye of the beholder. I merely find it interesting that a conservative would espouse allowing the government to define these terms for other people, instead of allowing them to decide for themselves.

Long before anything that would have an impact on me would happen I'd be long gone...as in 6' under. In other words, before what you fear comes to pass we will all more than likely be dead and our grand kids or further down the road will have to deal with it.
That's the modern so-called neo-"conservative" for you. Just ignore the problems we dump on the kids and future generations, like the national debt, enmity among other nations, pollution, etc.ROFL ROFL

I'm well aware you didn't specifically cite any of these examples, it's simply the logical extension of that mode of thinking, and evidenced by current policy.:D

Chiefs Express
04-23-2006, 08:06 PM
One does not preclude the other.

"Smut", like "Obscenity", "Beauty", "Art" and myriad other subjective concepts, are in the eye of the beholder. I merely find it interesting that a conservative would espouse allowing the government to define these terms for other people, instead of allowing them to decide for themselves.

That's the modern so-called neo-"conservative" for you. Just ignore the problems we dump on the kids and future generations, like the national debt, enmity among other nations, pollution, etc.

I'm well aware you didn't specifically cite any of these examples, it's simply the logical extension of that mode of thinking, and evidenced by current policy.

I guess it's American society. We got dumped on and we will dump on those that come after us, I guess that you've missed that point.

Also, what you have failed miserably to figure out is that I don't really care. It's an issue that will not be settled by me having an opinion or by you having an opinion and neither of us is going to Washington to make a play for what we believe.

You are pissing in the wind.

Adept Havelock
04-23-2006, 08:28 PM
I guess it's American society. We got dumped on and we will dump on those that come after us, I guess that you've missed that point.


That's your opinion. I think a big part of the American way is about trying to leave a better world for those that follow you. I didn't get "Dumped on". At times due to fate and fortune we didn't have much, but my parents still spent a good chunk of their lives trying to make things better for their kids and the next generation in general, as did their parents, and their parents before them, etc. It's why I've spent a good chunk of my life working to better the lot of mine and others, and I believe they will do the same for theirs.

Maybe you got dumped on, and don't have a problem of dumping on those that follow you. If you choose to follow the philosophy of not caring if you crap where you live because the next generation will have the job of cleaning it up, it's your right as an American. If that works for you... :shrug:

As for being someone who doesn't really care, you've sure spent a lot of time tonight posting about something you don't care about. ;)

FYI- One doesn't have to go to Washington to make a play for what we care about. That's what donations of time and money, networking, organizing, and other political activities are for. I personally have always found them quite rewarding. It's easier for me I guess, because I can pick and choose my people and issues, since I refuse to join up with either party.

Have a good night, CE.

Chiefs Express
04-24-2006, 03:20 AM
That's your opinion. I think a big part of the American way is about trying to leave a better world for those that follow you. I didn't get "Dumped on". At times due to fate and fortune we didn't have much, but my parents still spent a good chunk of their lives trying to make things better for their kids and the next generation in general, as did their parents, and their parents before them, etc. It's why I've spent a good chunk of my life working to better the lot of mine and others, and I believe they will do the same for theirs.

Maybe you got dumped on, and don't have a problem of dumping on those that follow you. If you choose to follow the philosophy of not caring if you crap where you live because the next generation will have the job of cleaning it up, it's your right as an American. If that works for you...

As for being someone who doesn't really care, you've sure spent a lot of time tonight posting about something you don't care about.

FYI- One doesn't have to go to Washington to make a play for what we care about. That's what donations of time and money, networking, organizing, and other political activities are for. I personally have always found them quite rewarding. It's easier for me I guess, because I can pick and choose my people and issues, since I refuse to join up with either party.

Have a good night, CE.

You seem to forget, I don't have an opinion or a position. Just ask some of the more prominent members of the board.

patteeu
04-24-2006, 06:31 AM
Who needs sex toys when Intelligent Design has brought us the banana?

Dave Lane
04-24-2006, 10:10 AM
Who needs sex toys when Intelligent Design has brought us the banana?


Nice!

Dave

memyselfI
04-24-2006, 10:19 AM
Originally Posted by Chiefs Express
If you don't stand for something you'll fall for anything.

Bumper-sticker philosophy. What a surprise. It doesn't directly affect me, but it's none the less a matter of principle.

LOLOL, Logical and Luzap (I've dropped the normally added 'cr' for now) used to use the EXACT same line when arguing in support of the WOT and the Bush Administration many moons ago...

and now? One of them isn't here defending the administration (and has been conspicuously quiet about them for a LONG time) and the other is in full frontal assault against them.

I think there might be a valuable lesson about 'standing and falling.'

Jilly
04-24-2006, 10:30 AM
Who needs sex toys when Intelligent Design has brought us the banana?

if it could only figure out how to vibrate....

Dave Lane
04-24-2006, 10:48 AM
if it could only figure out how to vibrate....


I think that could be fixed.

Dave

Clint in Wichita
04-24-2006, 11:02 AM
Is it just coincidence that the columnist's name is "Adcox"?

Chiefs Express
04-24-2006, 11:20 AM
LOLOL, Logical and Luzap (I've dropped the normally added 'cr' for now) used to use the EXACT same line when arguing in support of the WOT and the Bush Administration many moons ago...

and now? One of them isn't here defending the administration (and has been conspicuously quiet about them for a LONG time) and the other is in full frontal assault against them.

I think there might be a valuable lesson about 'standing and falling.'

There sure is, you and Vlad fell for the robot programming from the liberal side of the house.

For you it was expected, but for Vlad it can be attributed to heavy doses of medication that has obviously affected his brain function.

Jilly
04-24-2006, 01:26 PM
I think that could be fixed.

Dave

I'm in

tiptap
04-24-2006, 01:47 PM
Not a bumper sticker, learned it in church. Go figure!


I don't see depriving the world of smut a problem. If you do, that's your choice.

This isn't the fed as you seem to be trying to elude to, it's a state government. If you feel the problem is going to be systemic then by all means jump on your bandwaggon and do something.

Long before anything that would have an impact on me would happen I'd be long gone...as in 6' under. In other words, before what you fear comes to pass we will all more than likely be dead and our grand kids or further down the road will have to deal with it.

FWIW, I think you are pissing up a rope about a situation that isn't going anywhere.

Can we ban the Bible or at least the explicit sex parts, you know bare breasts, virgin sacrifices, sleeping with the enemy to keep your people free, sending a man to die to get his wife, you know all the good stuff. Jews don't have many good artists, they couldn't draw the stuff so they wrote about it.

Dave Lane
04-24-2006, 02:12 PM
Actually the part with Lot boinking his daughters bothered me. I guess thats what happens when you don't have battery operated sex toys.

Dave

banyon
04-24-2006, 02:59 PM
Actually the part with Lot boinking his daughters bothered me. I guess thats what happens when you don't have battery operated sex toys.

Dave

He was drunk, so it doesn't count.

Right? :shrug:

Jilly
04-24-2006, 03:05 PM
Song of Solomon...now that's porn if I've ever read it.

Pitt Gorilla
04-24-2006, 03:07 PM
Considering that this is not 1950 your response is moot.

What you see as personal freedoms I see as immoral sexual devices.

I wouldn't vote for a law to ban them but I also wouldn't vote to let them stay.

It's a case of personal preference and moral standing.What the F*ck is "immoral" about a sexual device? What kind of "moral system" has ANY concern with sex toys? As far as I know, most religions (including mine) are pretty supportive of sex between husbands and wives. Please explain.

Baby Lee
04-24-2006, 03:12 PM
What the F*ck is "immoral" about a sexual device? What kind of "moral system" has ANY concern with sex toys? As far as I know, most religions (including mine) are pretty supportive of sex between husbands and wives. Please explain.
Some of those dongs are big and BLACK!!! ROFL ROFL

Clint in Wichita
04-24-2006, 04:11 PM
If you believe that God created the universe, then you must believe that God created sex.

That means he created "hot dogs and doughnuts".

He also created oral, anal, rimjobs, the donkey punch, the angry pirate, the Cleveland Steamer...

Damn. What a filthy God!

Dave Lane
04-24-2006, 04:31 PM
Here you go...

Dave

Chiefs Express
04-24-2006, 04:53 PM
What the F*ck is "immoral" about a sexual device? What kind of "moral system" has ANY concern with sex toys? As far as I know, most religions (including mine) are pretty supportive of sex between husbands and wives. Please explain.

I suppose your wife supports you porking a blow up doll.

Chiefs Express
04-24-2006, 04:55 PM
If you believe that God created the universe, then you must believe that God created sex.

That means he created "hot dogs and doughnuts".

He also created oral, anal, rimjobs, the donkey punch, the angry pirate, the Cleveland Steamer...

Damn. What a filthy God!

I would guess from your comment that you haven't read the bible much.

Check out the part about Sodom and Gomorah.