Sending drug offenders to overseas prisons is one thing…

But I will be damned if you will lay your little republican mitts on my dildos.

I kid, of course. Sending drug offenders to prisons in countries with noted histories of human rights abuses is, to put it mildly, deeply and profoundly fucked up. More fucked up, even, then a full-frontal assault on sex toys.

I think it’s about time we took a look around and ask ourselves what’s going on when it’s acceptable for politicians to make suggestions like this one. Or like this one (“Let the prisoners pick the fruits!”).

Although I’d appreciate it if those politicians would lay off the rabbit habit. Or at least get their own and leave mine be.

via The General.

Similar Posts (automatically generated):

12 comments for “Sending drug offenders to overseas prisons is one thing…

  1. evil_fizz
    April 29, 2006 at 10:41 pm

    Pam has some great commentary on this at Pandagon. She’s even got the text of the bill.

    You know a bill is going to make for great reading when it defines “purient interest”…

  2. Harrison
    April 30, 2006 at 12:17 am

    You know, one has to wonder what prompted this dildo legislation. I wonder if this is a bit of not-so-displaced frustration? Ugh. I don’t even want to finish this thought. Suffice it to say that I’m extra happy to live in California, “Gomorrah on the Pacific.”

  3. Magis
    April 30, 2006 at 8:53 am

    Well now,

    This is going to make the price of carrots skyrocket.

  4. ballgame
    April 30, 2006 at 10:47 am

    I would think these kinds of laws would be incompatible with the decision by the federal court in Pittsburgh last year if that decision is not overturned, but I’m frankly ignorant about the interplay between the area of applicability of lower federal court constitutionality rulings and their impact on similarly-construed state legislation located in different circuits.

  5. zuzu
    April 30, 2006 at 12:03 pm

    They have no effect, ballgame, because it is in a different circuit.

    Of course, should there be a circuit split on the issue, the Supreme Court could well grant certiorari. Which would be… interesting, to say the least.

  6. April 30, 2006 at 1:10 pm

    Is there going to be a sex toy mafia? Outrunning revenooers and firing tommy guns at the cops?

    And the speakeasies! Can’t you just imagine the speakeasies?


  7. Kim
    April 30, 2006 at 2:48 pm

    How exactly do they justify bringing this up as a concern? Is SC just so great that they now have time to start outlawing sex toys instead of, say, working on public education?

  8. Ledasmom
    April 30, 2006 at 6:49 pm

    I envision a sudden rise in the purchase of interestingly-shaped art objects which, without the easily-removable base and decorations, become even more interestingly-shaped. Emergency dildo airdrops. Vibrator Robin Hood riding across the border at night.

  9. April 30, 2006 at 7:55 pm

    Remember the days when Republicans would say things like “Big government out of our lives”? I guess they meant something else.

  10. zuzu
    April 30, 2006 at 8:09 pm

    Doesn’t SC have some weird law where alcohol in bars can only be sold in little airplane-sized bottles?

  11. Magis
    April 30, 2006 at 8:21 pm


    Apparently, the “mini-bottle” law has just been repealed. The things are 1.7 oz. Utah had a mini-bottle requirement and people would come in from out of state and get smashed in no time at all. (Normal drink usually 1 or 1.25 oz.

  12. joni
    April 30, 2006 at 8:21 pm

    It’s illegal to buy or sell sex toys in Texas too, but you can still buy them in stores. Retailers just have to have sure there is a sticker on them that says, “For Novelty Use Only.” (I’ll say!) Most of the time the salespeople refer to them as gag gifts, “cake decorations” or “candle holders” (for sleeves, etc.). It’s ridiculous, but at least you can still get a vibrator in this state.

Comments are closed.