I’m counting my lucky stars that I don’t live in
Texas, Alabama or any of the other five states where my extensive
vibrator collection might land me in jail.
For some reason, the legislatures in these states says
it’s their right to dictate what people do in their bedrooms.
But anti-sex toy laws are not only anti-progress, they are an
invasion of privacy, and therefore unconstitutional.
Both Alabama and Texas have similar laws against sex toys
““ and while many people simply laugh them off as a joke (oh,
those silly Texans) ““ these laws hurt people who really
aren’t doing anything wrong.
Earlier this year, the U.S. Supreme Court rejected a case filed
by the American Civil Liberties Union that contested the Alabama
law, which has now been upheld.
The case was a constitutional challenge to a 1998 (no, these
laws are not prehistoric) amendment to Alabama’s obscenity
provisions that made it illegal to sell or produce “any
device designed or marketed as useful primarily for the stimulation
of human genital organs.” A violation can lead to up to a
$10,000 fine and up to one year in jail.
Sherri Williams, the main plaintiff, is the owner of two stores
called “Pleasures,” an Alabama corporation. She is
fighting to keep her two stores open. Other plaintiffs were either
vendors or users of sex toys.
The Texas Penal Code has a similar section that contends that
anyone who “wholesale promotes or possesses with intent to
wholesale promote any obscene material or obscene device” has
committed a criminal offense.
And these laws aren’t just written into the code and then
ignored. A former fifth-grade teacher, Joanne Webb of Texas, who is
a part-time salesperson for Passion Parties Inc., was arrested in
November 2003 for selling obscene devices. She then went through an
eight-month legal battle before the charges were finally dropped.
What’s ridiculous about this law is that as long as you
market the device as a novelty it’s legal to sell it. The
reason Webb was arrested was that she explained how to use what she
was selling.
Lisa S. Lawless, the president and founder of the National
Association for Sexual Awareness and Empowerment and CEO of
Holistic Wisdom Inc., has worked with both Williams of Alabama and
Webb of Texas.
“One of the things that was so outraging to me was to
watch women like Joanne Webb and Sherri Williams go through these
witch hunts concerning the sale of sex toys, which in themselves
are not only beneficial to health and sexuality, but also a
constitutional right of adults in this country. These backward laws
blatantly violate our constitutional rights and are absolutely
ludicrous,” Lawless said. Lawless founded NASAE in order to
empower professionals in the sex industry by networking and
providing legal assistance. NASAE also has a “Sexual
Emergency System” that is designed specifically to help
people like Williams and Webb who are facing legal action but may
not have the resources or knowledge to protect themselves.
The organization also works to coordinate the efforts of groups
such as the ACLU and the Free Speech Coalition that are not solely
dedicated to this cause, but work on similar issues. According to
Lawless, people in Webb’s situation are often threatened,
being told that if they go to the press there will be no chance of
a lenient sentence.
Lawless strongly believes in our right for sexual freedom,
whether this is using sex toys or not. “If you don’t
feel that sex toys are appropriate for you, that’s fine, but
there shouldn’t be a legal agenda about it.”
The courts upheld the Alabama law because it did not impinge on
a fundamental right (you can own them, you just can’t sell
them) or target a certain group of people.
Yet another argument used by the ACLU in the Alabama case was
that sex toys can often be used for therapeutic and medical
purposes. According to Lawless, women who have had hysterectomies
and lost their sexual drives can often use vibrators to increase
the blood flow to the vaginal area.
With this information, the Alabama legislature did add an
exception. You are exempted if “the act charged was done for
a bona fide medical, scientific, educational, legislative,
judicial, or law enforcement purpose.”
Law enforcement purposes? My imagination is running wild.
But the medical benefits of sex toys shouldn’t even be
needed to argue this case. It should be given that you can walk
into a store and buy a vibrator without it having to be marketed
for other purposes.
I can’t even think of what other purposes a vibrator or
dildo would be marketed for.
It is time for the Supreme Court to, once and for all, set a
precedent that will get rid of these ridiculous laws.
If you own six or more obscene devices, e-mail Lara at
lloewenstein@media.ucla.edu before moving to Texas.