[news] a shot in the dark

[dot_fennel]

South Carolina legislator Ralph Davenport introduced a bill in March banning the sale of sex toys. Speaking to a Columbia TV station in May, though, he elaborated:

Davenport admits he doesn't even know what a sex toy is. Nor does he have a strong opinion about them. The bill, he says, will help the people he represents.

If the bill passes selling sex toys would be a felony. The punishment would be five years in prison and/or a $10,000 fine.

It's common for politicians to stereotype or disguise the people a proposed law would affect, but usually as a form of persuasion, unlike here. Davenport could have said, "I just don't think the doctors of South Carolina ought to be forced to shovel coal into the maw of steam-powered vibrating tables" etc. But he didn't even do that! Society has succeeded at protecting Ralph Davenport from information about sex toys and yet he can't resist the temptation to write laws about them. So we have to ask, is writing laws more fun than actually having sex? If not, can we argue a fortiori that this shows abstinence-only education doesn't work?

You can read the bill here. (It seems to have stayed in subcommittee so far.) It's pretty sloppy work; the obscenity law it amends was written to apply to media-- porn-- not objects. Even the most realistic vibrators don't "depict or describe" sexual activity.

For a good summary of a lot of relevant history, read Rachel Maines' affidavit in an Alabama case enjoining the enforcement of an anti-sex-toy law. Maines says, among other things, that no American law ever banned vibrators until 1973 and that what federal regulation existed of vibrator sale (mostly related to electrical safety) was largely dropped in 1996.

Comments

[ukelele.livejournal.com]

Argh. I once lobbied my legislator (in a different state) when he was wanting to do something ineffective and unconstitutional, that he didn't understand was ineffective and unconstitutional, and his reasoning was all "In my county where I come from there are bad people! With porn! And racism!"

*faceplant*

Needless to say the lobbying was not effective. The Supreme Court, however, eventually was.

[dot_fennel]

Porn AND racism? What was the measure he had in mind?

[ukelele.livejournal.com]

The Communications Decency Act.

....to which the racism was almost completely irrelevant. Seriously, his argument seemed to be "Little girl [I was 17 though he probably thought I was 18], don't you know there are bad people in the world?"

Silly me with my 50 pages of relevant constitutional precedent, not to mention actual lengthy experience with the internet, which he probably didn't have in 1995...

*yargh*

Rockefeller. He's a big, big idiot.

[frobzwiththingz.livejournal.com]

Davenport admits he doesn't even know what a sex toy is. Nor does he have a strong opinion about them. The bill, he says, will help the people he represents.

In the unlikely event that it acually passes, I think certain groups of people should start demonstations at places like Home Depot, demanding that the law be enforced equally and telling the management of Home Despot that they either get rid of their entire hardware aisle, or be frog-marched off to jail.

I am *not* joking.

[ukelele.livejournal.com]

Surely there are more enticing possible demonstrations, involving sex toys and the steps of Congress.

I totally leave the details on this one to other people.