No vibrator for you

During a recent trip to New York City, I struck up a conversation with a very nice couple from Los Angeles. I was in an Irish pub and off-handedly mentioned to some of my colleagues that it is illegal to sell sex toys in Alabama. It turned out that a lady at the next table is in the business of selling sex toys. It's a good thing she isn't planning to move to Houston.

Today, Slate is reporting that Texas is challenging a ruling that strikes down a ban on the sale of sex toys in the state. Furthermore, it turns out that it is illegal to sell an 18-inch dong in Mississippi as well. Virginia bans "obscene items," but strangely that does not seem to cover sex toys.

Technically, the Texas ruling could, ahem, loosen the morals of Mississippi since the ruling came from the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, which also includes Mississippi. Interestingly, the 11th Circuit, which covers Alabama, ruled the opposite way. This could legitimize a Supreme Court appeal since two appeals courts ruled differently.

Now picture the Supremes debating the merits and demerits of selling the Pleasurematic 9000. (You're welcome.)

The attorney general for Texas is arguing that, if allowed to stand, the 5th Circuit ruling will "invite … challenges to previously-uncontroversial criminal prohibitions." Specifically, he is in a tizzy because allowing the sale of sex toys could start a slippery slope that ends with a debate over the legalization of incest and bigamy. Remember that this is the same state that was forced to repeal a law prohibiting same-sex intercourse in 2003.

This line of reasoning makes no sense at all. I could not find any statistics to prove or disprove the connection between vibrator use/disuse and incest rates or rates of any other non-traditional sexual practices for that matter. Regardless, there are more appropriate legal grounds for prohibiting incest and bigamy than tying it to the trade in French ticklers. Much more to the point: the state has no legitimate interest in what you are using in the bedroom. The other side of this slippery slope argument ends with a ban on the sale of bananas and cucumbers.

Point one: Since the 1965 ruling in Griswald v. Connecticut, the courts have generally held that Americans generally have the right of privacy in the bedroom. The current understanding is that the right to privacy is not absolute, but the government needs to have a pretty damned good reason to control what you do in your own home. We're talking about things like rape, child abuse, domestic violence and not whether or not you use a little something extra alone or with a partner.

Point two: Obviously, there are limits to those privacy rights, but there is a definite difference between protecting children from predators and state-sponsored prudishness.

Point three: Aren’t there more important things going on in Texas, some of which might actually require the attention of the state’s attorney general?

Finally, in one of those interesting little quirks of legalese, the Texas law does have an exception for "law enforcement" uses. That must mean that the cops may buy and own handcuffs, but you cannot.

Chris