The Last Waltz Done Live At Club Deville
Review: The Cherry Orchard at The Blue Theater
EAST Interview: Nick Henning at Pump Project
Weekend Music Preview: Fabrication 7, Car Stereo (Wars), & More!
Show Preview - An Evening with Daniel Johnston
[The following is an editorial column by contributor Carly Kocurek and does not necessarily reflect the views of the Austinist staff. --The Editors]
The United States Supreme Court officially decided to ignore a Texas case questioning the constitutionality of the ban on promoting realistic sex toys as such –- y’all, they’re educational aids, with no intention to get you off titillate or arouse at all. Seriously, though, this lack of decision is troubling, and I have no idea what educational purpose realistic dildos could possibly serve in a state that subscribes to the abstinence-only model of sex ed.
The case stemmed from charges filed against an adult bookstore employee who was caught as part of an undercover operation in El Paso. Apparently, he assured a plainclothes officer that a particular product would “arouse and gratify her.” The salesperson, Ignacio Sergio Acosta, argued that the ban, which covers the manufacture, marketing and distribution of so-called “obscene devices,” is in violation of the right to sexual privacy established in 2003 by the U.S. Supreme Court ruling on Lawrence and Garner v. Texas.
Apparently, though, the Supreme Court was having none of that reasoning. The state has maintained that the regulations on sex toys aren’t an attempt to legislate what goes on in the bedroom; I’m not sure what other intention the restrictions could have. The seemingly arbitrary enforcement makes the rules problematic.
Walk in any sex shop in Austin, and you’ll be confronted by a bevy of “educational aids,” “adult novelties,” and “personal massage devices.” Call an in-home sales rep and you’ll be offered a plethora of “marital aids.” Sex toys still circulate; they just go by different names.
The law doesn’t shut down sales so much as it shuts down frank discussion. It adds to the wink wink nudge nudge attitude surrounding sexuality, and reinforces notions of what constitutes deviant sexuality. The state may have been forced to let go of its sodomy laws, but is still working overtime to define normative sex — it’s straight, it’s procreative, and it sure as hell doesn’t involve dildos. Particularly not dildos sold with the intention of providing sexual pleasure. While the law may technically allow you to use “obscene items” in the privacy of your own home, it’s making a concerted effort to keep you from obtaining them both by adding to the difficulty of locating items in brick-and-mortar businesses and by stigmatizing their purchase, possession and use.
And, whether the courts will admit it or not, use is part of the issue. After all, Acosta got dragged in specifically because he spoke about the use of the item. The last high-profile case of this nature involved former schoolteacher Joanne Webb, an in-home sales representative for Passion Parties, Inc. who was charged in 2004 after selling items to undercover cops.* Webb, a Baptist and mother of three, stood her ground, and the charges were eventually dropped. Acosta has not been so lucky, likely in part because he doesn’t have a squeaky-clean suburban image to retreat behind. Although an El Paso County court had granted a motion to dismiss the charges, an appeals court reinstated them.
* You know, I read enough of these cases, and I get the impression that undercover officers troll around trying to buy vibrators from unsuspecting salespeople for fun. I can hear them now: “She just sold me a Flex Gordon. This case is going to be a slam dunk!”
add to stumble upon
add to reddit
tweet this
post to facebook
Post a comment (Comment Policy)