Rational Orgasm
Continuing with what seems to be today's look at Big-Brotherism and conservative sex-obsession, herewith an excerpt from "Toying with Your Freedom", by Dimitri Vassilaros, in the Tribune-Review [Pittsburgh, PA]:
Alabama had outlawed the sale of what some call "marital aids." The U.S. Supreme Court last week declined to review the 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruling in Williams v. Alabama that upholds the 1998 ban.
Sell "any device designed or marketed as useful primarily for the stimulation of human genital organs" and risk a $10,000 fine and a year in jail.
[…]
Alabama argued its sex-toy ban " … and related orgasm stimulating paraphernalia is rationally related to a legitimate legislative interest in discouraging prurient interests in autonomous sex." And that "it is enough for a legislature to reasonably believe that commerce in the pursuit of orgasms by artificial means for their own sake is detrimental to the health and morality of the State."
"Rationally related"? What would non-prurient "interests in autonomous sex" be? Since I write fiction for adults, do I participate in "commerce in the pursuit of orgasms by artificial means", or is masturbating "natural" provided one doesn't use anything that requires batteries?
I wish that the Supreme Court had chosen to clarify some of these issues; it sure would make questions about "gay marriage" look easy.
In: All, Common-Place Book, Raised Eyebrows Dept.