Posted on 04/23/2006 5:47:00 AM PDT by Crackingham
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.
That is so true!
You didn't answer any of the questions. You gave some bogus vague "reasonable regulation" garbage.
If you're going to base your argument on "reasonableness," that's stupid--it proves my point--reasonableness is subjective. If the People of the State of South Carolina think that a reasonable regulation on the sale of dildos is to ban the sale, then who are we to question that?
You can't draw a line based on reasonableness. That's madness; there would be a million different lines based on a million different views of what is reasonable. Can't work.
As a deadly weapon! Someone might be clubbed to death with one...maybe...someday....somewhere.... somehow..(could happen) LOL!
Well, maybe you should have done some research into Our Federalism and constitutional law before you made such an assumption.
Meanwhile, those of us that enjoy gun ownership are living comfortably in states that hold similar values.
Owners of these devices should be strictly licensed. They should be tested, and should be periodically inspected. Safety courses should be required. I tremble (no pun) to think what the unrestricted usage of such devices would do to our society.
If the People of the State of South Carolina think that a reasonable regulation on the sale of boots is to ban the sale (you might kick someone to death), you would support that?
Where do you draw the line?
Me too.
They could set up weekend classes in dildo safety and the proper handling, usage, storage, and maintenance.
If that means banning the sale of boots, then that means banning the sale of boots.
My system works brilliantly because there is no need to draw the line, because ANY line is necessarily arbitrary. Only in a system of unlimited police powers is there no arbitrariness; thus, the people have simple options if they do not like the path of the legislature: vote at the ballot box or vote with their feet. Not only is this system the most rational and the most just, as a happy coincidence, it is also the one most consistent with the Founders' intent.
Do you mean authoritarian? If so there's plenty of competition - and not just from red states in the Bible Belt.
New York prohibits talking on your cellular telephone while driving.
A number of states have enacted draconian prohibitions on smoking in public places.
Some states ban the use or posession of speed radar detectors.
More states now have some sort of seat-belt law (so they can spend federal highway funds where they might do some good), and many states require helmets when you are riding a motorcycle.
I would aver that most of these laws were enacted with Republican support, if not Republican sponsorship.
Nannyism is not exclusively a Democrat disease.
Ever been to Columbia?
It's like the old laws that only married couples were legally permitted to obtain contraceptives. Maybe this legislator is really trying to keep unmarried people from having these devices.
Admit it; you're a sex pervert -- driving around tightly strapped in a 5-point harness to a 500+ hp sports car with intentionally unbalanced wheels:
"uUuUuUuUuUuUuUuUuUUUuUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUU WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA! WAaaaaaaaaaaa! ughhhhh! Ahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh!"
You sick bastard!
He's a Southern Baptist.
I don't know--with the ease of purchasing these things on the Internet, if that's his purpose, I doubt it will be too successful.
More likely, he's just trying to get rid of these stores, which don't exactly attract the most upstanding people. Say what you want, the 2006 Times Square is a lot better place to visit than the pre-1990s Times Square that was filled with crooks, bums, and porn shops.
Oh man. Driving that car (Lemans Blue C6 superchaged 2005 Corvette Coupe) IS BETTER than sex!
Yuppers guess I am a pervert. LOL!
On that note. I am headed out the door for a drive! :-)
decencey and morality bump.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.