Is that the point of laws? To make communities more enjoyable?

My point is this:

If a city feels that something going on is bad for the people of the town, they should be able to make their own laws accordingly, as long as it is not unconstitutioal.

Do you have a problem with laws that say sex shops are not allowed with so many feet of schools? Shouldn't these be unconstitutional too?

But if you REALLY want to look at the constitutionality of this whole ridiculousness, think about this:

There have been "morality" laws on the books since the beginning of the country. Why weren't these removed from the books when the Constitution was passed?

A truly cautionary tale:

http://www.snopes.com/risque/penile/scrotum.asp

"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."

I don't know about you BS65 but for as long as I have been alive there have been a majority of male politicians, male judges, male clergy and male lawyers. These are the people who put these laws on the books and are still fighting for or defending "morality" laws. Women have only come on the scene in recent decades but are still in the minority when it comes to who governs, or as you prefer "lord over", us. Remember, we only got to vote in 1920.

If "all men" feel this way then who are these men that preach or legislate against the evils of sex? As a woman, I am very much in favor of legalized prostitution. I have never understood why it is illegal for a man (or woman) to pay a man or woman for sex. If anything, keeping it illegal is harmful to the prostitutes. It places them in need of pimps for protection from the law and marginalizes them from society. If a prostitute is raped, beaten or robbed, going to the police isn't really an option due to them having to admit to participating in unlawful behaviour. Legalized prostitution would also benefit the johns. Not only from infections (if regular screenings were mandatory) but also from not having to frequent questionable parts of town, not to mention the fear of getting arrested.

And Kufir, why is it OK for communities to ban sex toys? How would such a ban make a community more enjoyable? Would you therefore ban all sorts of vibrating massagers, hand-held belt sanders or even tooth brushes? I'm assuming anything that vibrates could be used as a vibrator. Hell, guys use vacuum cleaners to get off. I guess those would have to be regulated as well.

So some manufacturers make it easier and make vibrating things that would be safer to use than other household appliances. How is this suddenly making the community unsafe or immoral? Why would anyone care if someone is using some sort of inanimate object for pleasure? As for your clarifying that its the sale being illegal and not the use, well, how does someone use such a device if they can't buy it?

Yes, my above statement about belt sanders and tooth brushes was meant to be ridiculous (although there are stories about men being injured from vacuum cleaners). But its just as ridiculous as getting offended by some colorful pieces of latex, plastic and rubber. Oh, but the children!

And I second the other poster asking why "morality" laws are always meant to refer to sex and not what I consider real morals, that is to not cheat, lie, kill or steal.

Sure they can all they have to do is use their heads!

Sex toys: yay (and about time)

Clinton: it's not a comeback if you were up by twenty percentage points! C'mon. Casually buying in to the new-narrative-every-thirty-seconds approach of the mainstream media is destructive and lazy.

No understand Svutlana one bit why Texas, where everything suppose for be big, no allow sex toy until February 14, 2008. And even when final allow big Texas sex toy, one judge disagree! In Svutlandia--little island in Baltic Sea where come from Svutlana--place us sex toy beside pudding spoon on formal table set.

Seem for me, make more sense for ban toy gun than toy penis. For sure judge who disagree see Platypussy 1600 buzz machine with 6.5 inch and sixteen function in window of naughty peoples store and no like one bit.

Platypussy 1600 can wiggle and vibrate at different speed with up down arrow key and big bug on top with antenna that tickle. And Platypussy can whip cream too!

Like me buzz machine lot. Go for store for naughty peoples with friend and never see so many buzz machine in all life me. Store clean and bright, little bit like drug store only with very different ways for make feel better. See me buzz machine in flesh colour with red top and big vein on side. Frayed maybe mens outside store miss...no like me one bit!

Think me Texas judge need light up and no be intimidate with machine that please womens. It just buzz machine that give womens physical please. Need real person for mind please and real penis for intimate please and that where real Texan come in, so speak.

Fortunate, no machine can ever replace people who want for call machine that give womens please illegal.

No machine ever replace, but maybe should.

Svutlana

This sounds like a fact-pattern from my Constitutional Law exam, in fact. And yes, the right to privacy, as defined in the "penumbra" to the Bill of Rights (see Griswold v. Connecticut) outweighs whatever interest the state of Texas may have in promoting "morality" (even if it does define "moral behavior" as refraining from the sale of peculiarly shaped rubber objects).

This is not about snickering about how everyone gets their jollies. It's about privacy - your right to do what you please in the privacy of your own home. And yes, your right to purchase a device that you can use in the privacy of your own home (Griswold was also about striking down a statute that forbade the sale of contraceptives, not the use of contraceptives). Sure, "dildo" is a funny word to say, and it's a silly case, but the implications are quite broad-reaching and quite serious - Texas-sized dildos aside.

But seriously, why does "morality" automatically mean "sex"? Shouldn't it be about, oh, doing good deeds, or doing charitable works, or helping others, or being kind, or being unselfish? Why are we allowing the dildo-hating prigs to redefine what "morality" means?