With the millions of people (including women) all over the world dying, starving and suffering, THIS is what really matters. I'm sure the founding fathers wanted to protect the constitutional right to stick a phallic piece of latex in your ass. Yay!

These devices tend to relieve suffering far more effectively than most any government ya know? And as far as the Right to Privacy goes, I may be in the minority, but, yeah, I think that is majorly important.

How exactly do they RELIEVE suffering? I can definitely think of how one could IMPOSE a little suffering with a dildo, but to relieve it? Fill me in (not literally, of course).

I'm going to guess...via genital stimulation that leads to orgasm?

Have you ever had one of those? They're pretty good for relieving any suffering.

I realize that you say the law is seldom enforced, but here in Northern Virginia, I haven't seen anything that resembles a ban on these naughty-part-replacements. Here there is a chain of stores called MVC (and another called night dreams) that sell everything from the usual fare of videos and magazines to swings. They also sell rubber in enough shapes and sizes to make a man question his own inadequacies. Of course, there are also several products for the aforementioned man to take that frustration out in. Get it? So maybe it is the far more liberal northern portion of the state, but I just thought I'd let you know that I've had no problem whatsoever procuring play-time toys in Virginia. I have also had a previous girlfriend attend a "tupper wear" party (I think this one was called a "slumber party") and come home with all sorts of fun things made from silicon and designed to keep us company on those cold, lonely nights when we were apart. I mean, Virginia is for lovers, right?

"The state has no business in the bedrooms of the nation."

Absence of orgasm = SUFFERING?

Wow, you must walk around with your hands in your pockets a lot, if you catch my drift. I see why you would be opposed to someone outlawing your beloved "devices". But why aren't we sending crates of these to Africa to relieve suffering?

As for orgasms, I prefer the old fashioned way: with a REAL person, not a rubber one (or body part).

The burden is on the people who wrote the laws to explain what good purpose they serve. Not the other way around. I'm not a sex toy user myself, and I am furthermore totally uninterested in how YOU get your jollies. That is at the heart of why I see no reason that others should not enjoy them - especially from a legal standpoint. Who do those laws protect?

Should have said "whom."

The govenment has no compelling interest in regulating the sexual behavior of consenting adults.

When the only kind of sexual activity that is allowed by law is the kind preferred primarily by healthy, white, middle class, hetero, married males, it is discriminatory against those that do not fit into that category. Look at who buys porn (see category above), and how easily available it is. Then look at who buys sex toys - women, homosexuals, singles, disabled persons, kinky people. Making these things illegal while porn is legal is a discriminatory double standard.

It isn't about the right to use a dildo - it is about the right to be free from government control over adult sexual behavior that harms no one.

The law never bans the use, just the sale. While I think the law is kind of dumb myself, I think communities also have to right to not allow the sale of this stuff.

But, according to your above statement, you must be for the legalization of prostitution, as well as bestiality. (and don't give me the animals can't consent crap, they don't consent to being killed for food either.)

It’s wonderful that you enjoy vanilla sex with your partner. But insisting that everyone get off the same way you get off is prudish, crazed and downright un-American. All these dumb old laws need to be taken off the books. Good for Texas for chipping away at them.

And it’s not like owning a sex toy means you’re playing solitaire – but since you seem rather sheltered I won’t get into it…

When the only kind of sexual activity that is allowed by law is the kind preferred primarily by healthy, white, middle class, hetero, married males,

You mean prostitution?

it is discriminatory against those that do not fit into that category. Look at who buys porn (see category above), and how easily available it is.

Porn is also illegal in most places.

Then look at who buys sex toys - women, homosexuals, singles, disabled persons, kinky people.

Hetero men use devices too. Are no singles consisting of white men?

Making these things illegal while porn is legal is a discriminatory double standard.

Usually all of it or none of it is outlawed. Frankly, women get all up in men's faces all the time about porn. And prostitution is still illegal thanks to the women who lord over all of us men.

Maybe we ought to outlaw dildos until women allow legal prostitution. Then we might call it even.

As it stands now, it is about the women limiting the men.

Absence of orgasm = SUFFERING?

Wow, you must walk around with your hands in your pockets a lot, if you catch my drift. I see why you would be opposed to someone outlawing your beloved "devices". But why aren't we sending crates of these to Africa to relieve suffering?

As for orgasms, I prefer the old fashioned way: with a REAL person, not a rubber one (or body part).

Your personal preferences are irrelevant.

The law never bans the use, just the sale. While I think the law is kind of dumb myself, I think communities also have to right to not allow the sale of this stuff.

Every law of the land has to pass, at the bare minimum, a rational basis test, means must be connected rationally to the ends. For example, suppose I say I want to ban clowns from my state, in order to prevent adultery. That doesn't stand up to rational basis, because one has nothing to do with the other, and would be declared unconstitutional. There are also higher standards: intermediate and strict scrutiny. Which one applies depends on the right being infringed/classification being made. When a law discriminates on the basis of gender, religion or speech, strict scrutiny applies, meaning the government has to justify the discrimination with a very important compelling government interest. When the law discriminates on gender and sexual orientation, intermediate scrutiny applies, meaning the government has to provide an exceedingly important reason for the discrimination, but not as important as in strict scrutiny.

In this case, Texas has to provide a rational basis for infringing on the freedom of the people who want to buy sex toys. The 5th Circuit wrote "Just as in Lawrence, the state here wants to use its laws to enforce a public moral code by restricting private intimate conduct. The case is not about public sex. It is not about controlling commerce in sex. It is about controlling what people do in the privacy of their own homes because the state is morally opposed to a certain type of consensual private intimate conduct. This is an insufficient justification after Lawrence."

The Attorney General of Texas has petitioned the 5th Circuit to review the decision en banc.

http://www.slate.com/id/2185623/entry/2185627/nav/tap3/

In his petition, he tries to argue that the state's interest in promoting what it thinks is moral conduct is sufficient to outweigh the individuals' interest in privacy to have sex with dildos. Furthermore, in a footnote, he attempts to make the argument that because some people could argue that incest and bigamy would enhance their sexual pleasure, striking down the ban on dildos would open the doors that kind of argument. He argues that anti-bigamy and anti-incest laws are legitimately grounded in the state's interest in protecting and promoting morals.