Saturday, October 14, 2006

So many questions...

The Supreme Court also refused to consider whether a Texas law making it a crime to promote sex toys shaped like sexual organs is unconstitutional.

What kind of sting operation is this? Is Texas all out of other crime? If so, shouldn't they be cruising the nation with a "lessons learned" Power Point?

It's illegal to "promote" the toys? Is it okay to manufacture them and own them? And the law only covers toys shaped like sex organs? So do the rubber duckie vibrator or the magic bullet have the Texas seal of approval? (Is there a Texas seal of approval for sex toys? Because I think there might be a market for t-shirts.) Is the idea that you can do what you want in the privacy of your own home as long as we can't deduce, from rifling your nightstand drawer, what you think of as a complete package?

We do all know that we can't tell that from a woman's vibrator, right? I mean, the rabbit is still one of the most popular ones on the market, and it's pink and features oscillating pearls. I think I speak for a fairly large percentage of women when I say we aren't hoping you'll be wearing pearls when your jockeys come off, and oscillating pearls are a wee bit over-the-top. I'm all for a constantly-evolving definition of masculinity, but unless you're Eddie Izzard, you probably want to steer clear of that presentation.

Maybe the point of the law is to protect your husband from feeling inadequate? Would that mean that the point of the law is that ignorance is bliss? ("What's wrong with my wife having a rubber duckie? What? She likes baths, man.")

Also, does the law mean that promoting this to the police officer would have been okay?

No comments: