home

S*x Toys v. Sex Slavery

by TChris

If the government is powerless to interfere with our right to play with a consenting adult sex partner of either gender, it should surely be powerless to prevent us from playing with a sex toy. Some South Carolina extremists nonetheless view the sale of sex toys as the kind of commercial activity that the state legislature should ban.

The South Carolina bill, proposed by Republican Rep. Ralph Davenport, would make it a felony to sell devices used primarily for sexual stimulation and allow law enforcement to seize sex toys from raided businesses.

"That would be the most terrible thing in the world," said Ms. Gillespie, an employee the Anderson shop. "That is just flabbergasting to me. We are supposed to be in a free country, and we're supposed to be adults who can decide what want to do and don't want to do in the privacy of our own homes."

Those who fret about the private lives of adults should redirect their interest to a serious topic: the kidnapping and sex trafficking of women in Iraq, a phenomenon that began after President Bush declared "Mission Accomplished."

No one knows how many young women have been kidnapped and sold since the fall of Saddam Hussein in 2003. The Organization for Women's Freedom in Iraq, based in Baghdad, estimates from anecdotal evidence that more than 2,000 Iraqi women have gone missing in that period. A Western official in Baghdad who monitors the status of women in Iraq thinks that figure may be inflated but admits that sex trafficking, virtually nonexistent under Saddam, has become a serious issue. The collapse of law and order and the absence of a stable government have allowed criminal gangs, alongside terrorists, to run amuck. Meanwhile, some aid workers say, bureaucrats in the ministries have either paralyzed with red tape or frozen the assets of charities that might have provided refuge for these girls. As a result, sex trafficking has been allowed to fester unchecked.

How many South Carolinians who oppose sex toys are willing to ask the president to respond to the sex trafficking crisis that he created in Iraq?

(Thanks to Raw Story for both links.)

< LA Times: Dump Cheney and Rumsfeld | Women, Men, Money and Fear >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


  • Re: Sex Toys v. Sex Slavery (none / 0) (#1)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sun Apr 23, 2006 at 01:17:28 PM EST
    When cucumbers are outlawed, only outlaws will have cucumbers. Good thing I have a huge stock of Mazola.

    Re: Sex Toys v. Sex Slavery (none / 0) (#2)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sun Apr 23, 2006 at 01:18:56 PM EST
    "Other states that ban the sell of sex toys include Alabama, Georgia, Mississippi and Texas, said Mark Lopez, an attorney for the American Civil Liberties Union." It surprises me to see Texas included in the list, particularly after selling the country a dildo of such proportions that, in spite of constant exposure to, decries belief.

    Re: Sex Toys v. Sex Slavery (none / 0) (#3)
    by Edger on Sun Apr 23, 2006 at 01:24:57 PM EST
    Keep them repressed, frustrated, and angry. Then sell them some bogeymen to scare the crap out of them, and tell them that you'll protect them by killing the bogeymen. Then tell them who to vote for.

    Re: Sex Toys v. Sex Slavery (none / 0) (#4)
    by Che's Lounge on Sun Apr 23, 2006 at 01:25:23 PM EST
    No cosigners. No story.

    Re: Sex Toys v. Sex Slavery (none / 0) (#6)
    by maddendude on Sun Apr 23, 2006 at 01:36:11 PM EST
    I don't understand why selling sex toys is wrong in the first place. Can someone explain that part to me?! If they can have sex with people, whats so bad about toys. It would actually be better, there would be less STDs, less abortions.

    Re: Sex Toys v. Sex Slavery (none / 0) (#7)
    by Edger on Sun Apr 23, 2006 at 01:39:06 PM EST
    Sex is that disgusting thing they are supposed to suffer though to produce children. Toys imply fun...

    Re: Sex Toys v. Sex Slavery (none / 0) (#9)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sun Apr 23, 2006 at 01:43:30 PM EST
    Can someone please remind me of the year?

    Re: Sex Toys v. Sex Slavery (none / 0) (#10)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sun Apr 23, 2006 at 01:48:25 PM EST
    Criminy. Evangelicals really do hate sex. I heard this argument made before, in some DailyKos comments, but it seemed awfully farfetched, even for the self-proclaimed Jesus freaks. But if they, and by they, I mean the Know-Nothing Party (GOP), are seriously trying to outlaw sex toys... I can understand the "gay people are bad" argument just a little. Homosexuality has always been on the fringe, throughout all of human history. But to ban sex toys? Never mind that the majority of folks having intercourse are heterosexual. The only conclusion you can reach is that these people honestly hate sex. What next? Outlawing oral sex? Putting surveillance monitors in bedrooms? Good God, they are already well on the way to that, aren't they?

    Re: Sex Toys v. Sex Slavery (none / 0) (#11)
    by jondee on Sun Apr 23, 2006 at 01:52:46 PM EST
    Where theres soldiers there tend to be brothels. How does that work in Iraq?

    Re: Sex Toys v. Sex Slavery (none / 0) (#12)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sun Apr 23, 2006 at 01:55:07 PM EST
    Jondee. I shouldn't worry about the soldiers they are gettig f..... enough.

    Re: Sex Toys v. Sex Slavery (none / 0) (#13)
    by squeaky on Sun Apr 23, 2006 at 01:55:31 PM EST
    . Homosexuality has always been on the fringe, throughout all of human history.
    You just made that up based on today's temp. Not true at all, very modern, or contemporary notion.

    Re: Sex Toys v. Sex Slavery (none / 0) (#14)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sun Apr 23, 2006 at 01:57:34 PM EST
    It was around before taxation.

    Re: Sex Toys v. Sex Slavery (none / 0) (#15)
    by Edger on Sun Apr 23, 2006 at 01:59:44 PM EST
    Wouldn't it be wonderful if republicans all adopted the Shaker religion, and banned reproduction among themselves? ;-)

    Re: Sex Toys v. Sex Slavery (none / 0) (#16)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sun Apr 23, 2006 at 02:05:14 PM EST
    It has been on many occasion suggested that they practice reproduction as a singular pastime

    Re: Sex Toys v. Sex Slavery (none / 0) (#17)
    by jen on Sun Apr 23, 2006 at 02:06:13 PM EST
    that will be a big boost to internet shopping in South Carolina.

    Re: Sex Toys v. Sex Slavery (none / 0) (#18)
    by Edger on Sun Apr 23, 2006 at 02:08:55 PM EST
    Jen, You might have nailed it there! Ralph Davenport must have friends or supporters who sell sex toys online. From other states of course...

    Re: Sex Toys v. Sex Slavery (none / 0) (#19)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sun Apr 23, 2006 at 02:15:08 PM EST
    It's time to sell my Duracell stock.

    Re: Sex Toys v. Sex Slavery (none / 0) (#20)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sun Apr 23, 2006 at 02:20:46 PM EST
    Given the locale, I shall refrain from a limerick.

    Re: Sex Toys v. Sex Slavery (none / 0) (#22)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sun Apr 23, 2006 at 02:48:39 PM EST
    Got to raise the gene pool somehow.

    Re: Sex Toys v. Sex Slavery (none / 0) (#23)
    by squeaky on Sun Apr 23, 2006 at 02:58:00 PM EST
    Why is it that the ones who call for massive sexual repression are the most twisted perverse ones around. Abstinence only? Well lets start putting the question to those who are now preaching. Tell us about yourselves. Remember the Bakkers and Father Ritter.
    The Lord giveth and taketh away fine toupees and Rolex watches. Up until 1987, televangelist Jim Bakker and his wife Tammy Faye were living in extravagance. The way they told it, prosperity was a gift from God, and He had blessed them with an army of followers and immense personal fortunes. The PTL ministry had a burn rate of $500,000 per day. Everything seemed to be going perfectly. But then Jim was caught fu*king anything with a pulse and they could no longer conceal their egregious cash skimming.
    As for Ritter
    In 1985 he served on US Attorney General Edwin Meese's Commission on Pornography.
    He left Covenent house in disgrace amid allegations of pedophilia and financial corruption.

    Re: Sex Toys v. Sex Slavery (none / 0) (#24)
    by Al on Sun Apr 23, 2006 at 02:59:15 PM EST
    Actually, what the no-sex-for-pleasure brigade wants is tons of children. That's their problem with sex toys, they have no reproductive value. For them, sex is a disgusting necessity in order to have children, which is what God really wants them to do. This is also why the Catholic Church has such a problem with condoms, or any contraceptive device. The very thought that people should mess with God's plan and have sex just for the fun of it absolutely horrifies them. Men are supposed to get women pregnant, with boys if possible, and women are supposed to close their eyes and think of England.

    Re: Sex Toys v. Sex Slavery (none / 0) (#25)
    by jondee on Sun Apr 23, 2006 at 03:24:08 PM EST
    "But Mr. Gladstone, you've already come." "By Jove, so I have."

    Re: Sex Toys v. Sex Slavery (none / 0) (#27)
    by squeaky on Sun Apr 23, 2006 at 04:18:58 PM EST
    "She'll be coming round the mountain when she comes" Six white horses does not a sex toy make.

    Re: Sex Toys v. Sex Slavery (none / 0) (#28)
    by Edger on Sun Apr 23, 2006 at 04:46:27 PM EST
    Squeaky, LMAO! I nearly fell of the chair!

    Re: Sex Toys v. Sex Slavery (none / 0) (#29)
    by Edger on Sun Apr 23, 2006 at 04:48:19 PM EST
    Have they outlawed Harley's in South Carolina yet? You better get after that company, Davenport. Their nickname is "Milwaukee Vibrator".

    Re: Sex Toys v. Sex Slavery (none / 0) (#30)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sun Apr 23, 2006 at 04:52:10 PM EST
    My Daddy has asked me to, Keep myself so pure and true. But my little toy, Gives so much joy. Bet it knows much more than you.

    Re: Sex Toys v. Sex Slavery (none / 0) (#31)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sun Apr 23, 2006 at 05:05:56 PM EST
    All us girls down South Caroline, Scrub at sin 'till we do shine. But to take away, So we can't play. Don't you dare it's mine mine mine.

    Re: Sex Toys v. Sex Slavery (none / 0) (#32)
    by kdog on Sun Apr 23, 2006 at 05:19:51 PM EST
    You forgot 'Maryann with the Shaky Hands' by the Who. "What they done to her man, those shaaaaaaky hands"

    Re: Sex Toys v. Sex Slavery (none / 0) (#33)
    by BigTex on Sun Apr 23, 2006 at 05:31:53 PM EST
    I don't understand why selling sex toys is wrong in the first place. Can someone explain that part to me?!
    Here's the thinking. There's nothing wrong with sex per se, the problem comes in whith whom and how it is done. Sex withing marriage is great. The more the better in fact because it is an expression of God's love for each other, and little buggers may result nine months down he road. Sex toys, however, are a problem because they don't have the resulting chance of rug rats. This is an issue of faith and morals. The reason to have sex is to end up with tikes. There is not a problem if no Gerbers result, but if the sex is dine in a manner that will not allow for urchins, then it is a perversion. A second problem, aside from the impossibility of little copies of yourslef, is that sex toys are a gateway to immorality. The use of sex toys is (hopefully) safe (at least from a STD standpoint). That means that an inhibition to having sex outside of marriage is removed. That's the thinking. As to the merits of the thinking I give no comment.

    Re: Sex Toys v. Sex Slavery (none / 0) (#34)
    by kdog on Sun Apr 23, 2006 at 05:40:47 PM EST
    That's the thinking. As to the merits of the thinking I give no comment.
    I will. Mind your own business, no one is forcing you to use sex toys. Or how about this..Add an amendment to ban church as well. Religion has caused more destruction than 'the rabbit' ever will.

    Re: Sex Toys v. Sex Slavery (none / 0) (#35)
    by Edger on Sun Apr 23, 2006 at 05:46:51 PM EST
    Tex: The reason to have sex is to end up with tikes...if the sex is done in a manner that will not allow for urchins, then it is a perversion...sex toys are a gateway to immorality. As to the merits of the thinking I give no comment And whoever came up with that kind of twisted moral(?) code didn't give much thinking to their comments.

    Re: Sex Toys v. Sex Slavery (none / 0) (#36)
    by cpinva on Sun Apr 23, 2006 at 06:07:25 PM EST
    No cosigners. No story.
    of course there's a story Che, but you knew that already. the story is that someone serially proposed this legislation, in a real (well, almost) state legislative body. consider the irony: south carolina, bastion of freedom, decrier of governmental interference in the personal affairs of men. so much so, they started a shootin' war over it. now, they are leading the pack in attempted govt snooping in..............your bedroom. the horror, the horror!

    Re: Sex Toys v. Sex Slavery (none / 0) (#37)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sun Apr 23, 2006 at 06:20:36 PM EST
    Tex- But don't they know vibes can be (and are at their best) used during sex, and thus the rugrats can still be the result? That in fact, there might be even more rugrats, since the ladies may want to have sex more often? I think it is just that the "good christian" types are weirded out by driving by a store that sells sex toys. A whole store for sex just seems sinful and obscene. I think these same types would be much more comfortable with people buying their sex toys online. Though I don't know: does this law or the already existing ones ban online purchases? There is always the possibility that people are just freaked out by the idea of women enjoying sex (and realizing the inadequacies of men to do the job). Isn't that the point of the majority of sex toys, to make it easier for women to feel sexual pleasure? You don't see people banning viagra for being too "prurient".

    Re: Sex Toys v. Sex Slavery (none / 0) (#38)
    by Edger on Sun Apr 23, 2006 at 06:28:57 PM EST
    Isn't that the point of the majority of sex toys, to make it easier for women to feel sexual pleasure? You don't see people banning viagra for being too "prurient". Maybe you're on to something there J.B. The favorite country song of these guys would be "Put Another Log On The Fire"?
    Ain't I always nice to your kid sister,
    Don't I take her driving every night?
    So sit here at my feet because I like you when you're sweet
    And you know that it ain't feminine to fight.


    Re: Sex Toys v. Sex Slavery (none / 0) (#39)
    by glanton on Sun Apr 23, 2006 at 06:35:50 PM EST
    consider the irony: south carolina, bastion of freedom, decrier of governmental interference in the personal affairs of men
    Anyone who ever took that progaganda seriously . . . well, they deserved to believe it. Sad that people fall for it tho. Anyway, it has been clear for some time that these here Phelps types smell blood. And they smell it because it's there. Uhmerrikah is ripe for the picking. Much to the delight of the top beasts. Eradicating privacy rights plays nicely in concrete jungles.

    Re: Sex Toys v. Sex Slavery (none / 0) (#40)
    by Sailor on Sun Apr 23, 2006 at 07:22:58 PM EST
    I appreciate your insight into the legislation Tex. But I think the bigger picture is; the gov't should stay the heck out of my bedroom! Whether I'm by myself, with a partner, or with my spouse, STAY THE F@#! OUT! It doesn't seem too much to ask.

    Re: Sex Toys v. Sex Slavery (none / 0) (#41)
    by glanton on Sun Apr 23, 2006 at 08:13:26 PM EST
    Ultimately this serves as yet another example of how pathetic the Democratic Party is. Never have I heard a high profile Democrat stand in front of cameras and call these people out for what they are. The Shiavo lemonade stands, the Phelps gang, the South Dakota Legislature, and now these rednecks. And those are only the highlights. But I think the Dems are afraid such rhetoric would mitigate all their trmendous success with Uhmerrikhans who think the world is 6000 years old.

    Re: Sex Toys v. Sex Slavery (none / 0) (#42)
    by BigTex on Sun Apr 23, 2006 at 08:22:59 PM EST
    Sailor - your view will prevail. The government should stay out of bedrooms.
    But don't they know vibes can be (and are at their best) used during sex, and thus the rugrats can still be the result?
    Seriously?

    Re: Sex Toys v. Sex Slavery (none / 0) (#43)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sun Apr 23, 2006 at 08:36:01 PM EST
    The South Carolina bill, proposed by Republican Rep. Ralph Davenport . . . Emphasis added, but couldn't you have guessed his party afflliation without looking? Trying to micromanage everyone's sex life has been part of the GOP MO ever since they lost their collective mind back in the 80s (remember the Meese Commission?). It's been a winning strategy for them, but why should it be? Why wouldn't more people be offended by the GOP's ill-disguised prurience instead of down with it? The Repubs put this nonsense over by calling them family values, but that's like saying that Prohibition was about the proper use of stemware. The whole issue has been handed over to the kind of people who like to make out that either (a) you subscribe to the view that sex is for procreation only and all other types should be punished, or (b) you're a perv, a 'ho, a child-raper and/or supporter thereof, a sex-fiend, slave to your johnson or hoo-hah (as the case may be), for whom infection by every STD known to man is not only possible, but a lead-pipe cert, along with a continual stream of unwanted pregnancies filling out your every-tenth-one-is-free card at the abortion clinic, while at the other end, you'll lose your hearing from your proclivity for fornicating until your ears bleed. This is, how you say, one of those framing issues. We shouldn't have let the Right have it, and we certainly shouldn't have l3et it get this far.

    Re: Sex Toys v. Sex Slavery (none / 0) (#44)
    by Edger on Sun Apr 23, 2006 at 08:58:50 PM EST
    Molly -
    lose your hearing from your proclivity for fornicating until your ears bleed
    That's it... I quit! :-(

    Re: Sex Toys v. Sex Slavery (none / 0) (#45)
    by cowboyx on Sun Apr 23, 2006 at 09:07:17 PM EST
    Edger, that ain't the right song at all. Shel Silverstein wrote that and no statements like that would have ever ended up on the Outlaws album if the message wasn't ironic. You probably knew that, but I wasn't sure...if you thought that was real...then knock it off. That song is as much in favor of the narrow-minded lifestyle as "Up Against the Wall Redneck Mothers"... If the Republicans won't call out their own crazies, the Dems should, and if they don't call out the GOP crazies...then they quite simply are betraying us all. Seems simple enough, call people out when they start micromanaging our lives. Of course, the scary part is that for a while, the Dems might have to be the carrier of classical liberal ideals. But, desperate times call for desperate measures...

    Re: Sex Toys v. Sex Slavery (none / 0) (#47)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Mon Apr 24, 2006 at 12:25:35 AM EST
    why is it extreme to not want that in your commnity, and by the way the"radical right" is active on the sex slave and child sex slavery

    Re: Sex Toys v. Sex Slavery (none / 0) (#48)
    by Edger on Mon Apr 24, 2006 at 01:58:39 AM EST
    CowboyX: no statements like that would have ever ended up on the Outlaws album if the message wasn't ironic. You probably knew that, but I wasn't sure I was hoping someone would notice both. ;-)

    Re: Sex Toys v. Sex Slavery (none / 0) (#49)
    by scarshapedstar on Mon Apr 24, 2006 at 03:07:01 AM EST
    Good thing Republicans see the real threats.

    Re: Sex Toys v. Sex Slavery (none / 0) (#50)
    by Sailor on Mon Apr 24, 2006 at 06:38:45 AM EST
    why is it extreme to not want that in your commnity
    it is extreme to enforce your narrow mindedness on others. besides, we've all the seen the ads, those are neck massagers BigTex, yes seriously. Especially if you're not up for the occasion.

    Re: Sex Toys v. Sex Slavery (none / 0) (#51)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Mon Apr 24, 2006 at 07:20:19 AM EST
    Edgar--Why did you think Reagan wore a hearing aid?

    Re: Sex Toys v. Sex Slavery (none / 0) (#52)
    by Edger on Mon Apr 24, 2006 at 07:35:53 AM EST
    Heh heh! Thanks Molly! I'll be laughing all day at work at that one. :-)

    Re: Sex Toys v. Sex Slavery (none / 0) (#55)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Mon Apr 24, 2006 at 09:01:49 AM EST
    Posted by zabmom April 24, 2006 01:25 AM
    why is it extreme to not want that in your commnity, and by the way the"radical right" is active on the sex slave and child sex slavery
    Ya mean besides the fact that it's none of your damned business? Well, if the radical right are actively involved in stamping out sex slavery of any kind that's too be commended. Then again, crack dealers, like Al Capone before them, set up soup kitchens and bread lines in the ghetto. Again, while commendable, that alone doesn't get 'em off the hook for all their other transgressions.

    Re: Sex Toys v. Sex Slavery (none / 0) (#56)
    by squeaky on Mon Apr 24, 2006 at 09:04:17 AM EST
    Molly, NYC- Along those lines is this recent news: The U.S. State Department is recalling U.S. Ambassador Reno Harnish from Azerbaijan.
    The Azerbaijani media is rife with speculation that Harnish is being recalled because of a burgeoning human smuggling scandal which came to the attention of the Federal Bureau of Investigation. The Moscow newspaper Trud newspaper reported on Thursday that FBI agents began interviews with embassy officials about the smuggling of Azerbaijani prostitutes into the United States and the issuing of visas.
    link

    Re: Sex Toys v. Sex Slavery (none / 0) (#57)
    by Johnny on Mon Apr 24, 2006 at 09:15:56 AM EST
    I never have been able to comprehend the idiot-wingers embracement of the personal responsibility thing whilst simultaneously attempting to enforce the total and complete restriction of any kind of choice. This is typical of the mysogynistic, fear-of-sex, purityrannical mentality that drives so many wrong-wingers... They sit there and gloat, knowing that an effective weapon at controlling a population is by legislating how, or if they even can, perform one of the most basic, natural acts that humans experience. The history of civilized cultures is rife with suppression and mandated morality, in the name of a dubious "greater good"... And anyone who thinks this is NOT about the subjugation of women has another think coming.

    Re: Sex Toys v. Sex Slavery (none / 0) (#58)
    by cpinva on Mon Apr 24, 2006 at 09:30:22 AM EST
    Anyone who ever took that progaganda seriously . . . well, they deserved to believe it. Sad that people fall for it tho.
    glanton, i was being snarky, i hope you realized that. that said, you'd be surprised the # of people in the south who will argue that with a completely straight face. down there, it's known as "the war of northern aggression", and it had nothing to do with slavery, but everything to do with "stat's rahts". of course, the right they are referring to was to own slaves. damn pesky facts!

    Re: Sex Toys v. Sex Slavery (none / 0) (#59)
    by glanton on Mon Apr 24, 2006 at 09:42:27 AM EST
    cp: I knew what you were doing. My comment was directed aqt the same "people" you discuss above. And you're dead on. The "right" then, that they fought for, was to oppress. So too now with these "rights." These Phelps goons cry states' rights to mean controlling women, criminalizing homosexuality, and any number of like drooling inanities. But again, while the Phelps phenomenon constitutes the heart of the GOP, it is the Democrats we should here be indicting. Go to the cameras, the papers, the and post offices, thou weak-stomached members of the Democratic hierarchy. Contest this "final solution" with which America is now faced, or get out of the way and let new blood take over. Simply put, the chance for decent governance in this nation depends upon recognizing that the days of the Clintons, the Kerrys, the Bidens, the Kennedys, the Liebermans of the world are past. They should do like the racehorses whose days are done. Go to pasture. We don't need you. You stood strong in the 60s on civil rights but now you are thoroughly moneyed, corporatized, pandering boobs. You have gone soft with power and the fear of losing it. Get thee to a nunnery!

    Re: Sex Toys v. Sex Slavery (none / 0) (#60)
    by Jlvngstn on Mon Apr 24, 2006 at 10:15:22 AM EST
    Shut em all down, I bet the carrot and cucumber farmers are excited as all get up. I wonder what kind of spinning one would have to do to market a shaking carrot? Not a vibrating one for sexual purposes but a shaking one you can leave in your yard to attract rabbits that are damaging your garden and trap them. Coming soon to a store near you: "The Bunny Lure" - It shakes ever so gently. Operating on 2 double d batteries the bunny lure helps any amateur gardener find the bunny in their garden. You say you and your wife are having problems taking care of your garden every week and would like some assistance in tracking the bunny down. Use this mildly shaking carrot, it will lure the bunny to the right spot and you will have a happy garden every time you get that bunny right where you want it. Since Bunnies come in all sorts of sizes, so do our Carrots and Cucumbers! If your gardener needs some help, send him on over to pick one up!

    Re: Sex Toys v. Sex Slavery (none / 0) (#61)
    by Jlvngstn on Mon Apr 24, 2006 at 12:14:14 PM EST
    If Benny Hinn can sell Miracle Water, I am sure I can sell Bunny Lures..

    Re: Sex Toys v. Sex Slavery (none / 0) (#62)
    by roy on Mon Apr 24, 2006 at 01:17:36 PM EST
    Johnny,
    I never have been able to comprehend the idiot-wingers embracement of the personal responsibility thing whilst simultaneously attempting to enforce the total and complete restriction of any kind of choice.
    They offer loads of choice. You can choose to have missionary-style intercourse through a hole in the sheet with your opposite-sex spouse, or you can choose to just cuddle. Plenty of options, anyone who wants more is just a deviant. Also, something about the children. Seriously, your quote above is now one of my favorites. Concise and precise. The hypocrisy you point out is the top reason I stopped voting Republican a few years ago.

    Re: Sex Toys v. Sex Slavery (none / 0) (#63)
    by kdog on Mon Apr 24, 2006 at 03:36:22 PM EST
    why is it extreme to not want that in your commnity
    Why is it extreme for me to not want churches in my community? Religion causes infinite more harm than sex toys. Why you say? Because it is opinion...because it is tyranny. Banning sex toys, churches, books, marijuana, or gay marriage...tyranny one and all.

    Re: Sex Toys v. Sex Slavery (none / 0) (#64)
    by BigTex on Mon Apr 24, 2006 at 06:39:57 PM EST
    Again, while commendable, that alone doesn't get 'em off the hook for all their other transgressions.
    Charley that statement was obviously aimed at TChris who, based on the tenor of what he wrote, apparantly does not believe that conservatives are doing anything or enough to combat sex slavery.

    Re: Sex Toys v. Sex Slavery (none / 0) (#65)
    by Edger on Mon Apr 24, 2006 at 06:52:59 PM EST
    Tex: conservatives are doing anything or enough to combat sex slavery Sure they are, Tex... About as much as they are doing in their "war" on drugs, and in their "war" on terror, and in their endles "war" on immorality, and in all their other "wars". How come every "problem" you guys invent and go to "war" against... ....gets bigger? And bigger? And bigger? And bigger? And bigger? Hmmm? You ever notice a pattern here? Or maybe you're just getting the result you really want? There's an old saying in the business world, Tex. It's always posed as a question...
    "If I'm not getting the results I want, what am I doing to get the results I'm getting?"
    It's got a little bit to do with an abstract idea called "taking responsibility".

    Re: Sex Toys v. Sex Slavery (none / 0) (#67)
    by Edger on Mon Apr 24, 2006 at 07:05:34 PM EST
    It's got a little bit to do with an abstract idea called "taking responsibility". Oh, and by the way. Take a good, long, hard, look in the nearest mirror. Just try not to fall through it, and end up down the rabbit hole. Again...

    Re: Sex Toys v. Sex Slavery (none / 0) (#69)
    by BigTex on Mon Apr 24, 2006 at 09:20:37 PM EST
    Edgar - your criticisms are so assinine that I won't dignify them with a response.

    Re: Sex Toys v. Sex Slavery (none / 0) (#70)
    by glanton on Mon Apr 24, 2006 at 09:27:46 PM EST
    How come every "problem" you guys invent and go to "war" against... ....gets bigger? And bigger? And bigger? And bigger? And bigger? Hmmm? You ever notice a pattern here? Or maybe you're just getting the result you really want?
    These are perfectly reasonable questions. Instead of indulging these rube state legislatures we ought to be beringing the hammer down on them and the Feds as well, for that matter. Their pet projects are ersatz. States rights and oppression are one and the same in Uhmerrikah, now and forevermore. A stern message needs to be sent to South Dakota, South Carolina, Texas, and other Phelps strongholds that what they are purporting to do is unacceptable. A stern message, public humiliation in the press, a Democratic Party smart and brave enough to take them to task for the evils they seek to impose. Not "here's the thinking." Not "well, at least they don't saw off heads." Not anything other than outright rejection.

    Re: Sex Toys v. Sex Slavery (none / 0) (#71)
    by glanton on Mon Apr 24, 2006 at 10:39:18 PM EST
    Oh, and these fools will come for Griswold next. It's only a matter of time. Less privacy, less individualism. More prisons/churches, more concrete jungle. More money for Papa Exxon. All Hail The Concrete Jungle. It is time that the Democratic Party took on this evil head on. The time for finding common ground is past. The time for courting trogoldytes is past. As a great poet once said, "if we must die, let us not die like dogs." Let us rather go down swinging. Stay alert, and stay with Fox.

    Re: Sex Toys v. Sex Slavery (none / 0) (#72)
    by Edger on Mon Apr 24, 2006 at 11:33:16 PM EST
    glanton: These are perfectly reasonable questions. Instead of indulging these rube state legislatures we ought to be beringing the hammer down on them and the Feds as well, for that matter. Thanks, glanton... I'm glad sombody noticed and understood. Why is the right always having to have the left do the exam for them?