Not so fast, professor....
I would argue that these "devices" are nothing more than vibrating electro-mechanical contraptions -- nothing inherently obscene in that; thus, I see no Constitutional basis for banning the commercial sale of such devices, unless we are now going to allow the state to ban ALL vibrating devices.
The obscenity issue only arises once the device gets in to the hands (and orifices) of the user, assuming they decide to put it to such use. But who is to say what use the customer will put the device to? Perhaps, as "Scully" noted, they might decide to use it as a "floor scrubber"...... nothing obscene in that, unless you find clean, happy floors obscene.
It reminds me of the joke about the difference between kinky and perverted sex. "Kinky" is when you use a a peacock feather.......... "perverted" is when you use the whole peacock!
Obscenity, by definition, is never inherent. Unfortunately, the standard seems to be no better than, "I know it when I see it," but the SCOTUS nevertheless does accept that there is such a thing as obscenity and that it can be banned under the Constitution. I'm not saying I like that, mind you...
The constitutional issue is probably whether the state can ban auto-stimulation devices, as a matter of public safety, or health, or something like that -- the way they ban selling booze to minors. These things are usually done under the state's "police power," and I really don't know if such a ban would fly, given that most states have their own bill of rights in their constitutions. I'm a conservative fellow, but I can't imagine any rational reason for outlawing a device designed to provide self-stimulation. However, if this becomes a hot issue in Texas, it would be interesting to see what a crowd of single-issue voters would look like.