too much typing—since 2003

6.17.2006

Because apparently there's nothing in the Constitution about the right to bear dildos

Sometimes, I just want to slap myself in the forehead over and over again, hoping that something I've read just isn't true, and we don't live in such a ridiculous nation. For example: apparently the latest right-wing trend is banning sex toys. Yep: the most important thing some state legislators feel the need to address is the notion that (to paraphrase the famous line about Puritans) someone, somewhere, is getting off with no one else present (such as the legislator) to assist.

The proposed bill would make it "illegal to sell devices used for sexual stimulation." In related news, teenage boys will no longer be allowed to ride buses or motorcycles (or, indeed, be unaccompanied by a parent or open their eyes), and washing machines will be banned within the state, lest anyone sit upon them for purposes of illicitly benefiting from their vibrations.

It occurs to me (because apparently I'm a sicko) that gun-control advocates ought to take advantage of such legislation, and claim that, clearly, a gun is a phallic substitute that someone might possibly use as a sex toy, and therefore, they ought to be banned as illegal under such legislation.

Alternately, those in favor of sex toys might try another well-used right-wing tactic, and agitate to have sex toys declared "persons." Arguably, they possess more attributes of personhood than either fetuses or corporations. (No word on what would happen if someone somehow used a corporation for sexual stimulation.)

Buzzcocks "Orgasm Addict"
Flipper "Sex Bomb"


(Thanks to the proprietors of the mysterious Horn Farm Paste Mob for pointing me to this link.)

No comments: