Howard reprints an e-mail message describing the oral arguments on Alabama's sex toys law. (I would link it, but his permalinks do not work. Go to his site and then look for September 23, 4:05 p.m.) This note is hilarious:
The State argued that this law was directed against only the "prurient" use of vibrators. Judges Barkett and Hill wanted to know what "prurient" meant in this context. Judge Barkett suggested that it merely meant "pleasurable", Judge Hill suggested "fun," and the State went with "recreational." Who knew that recreation was ipso facto prurient, or that things could be banned on the grounds that they were fun?
I have always thought of "prurient" as meaning "sex-focused". That is, nudity may be artistic (Michelangelo's David), it may be recreational (the naturists), it may be medical (a gynecology textbook), it may be educational (a Planned Parenthood pamphlet on using contraceptives) or it may be sex-focused.
A vibrator, however, is by definition sex-focused. There is simply no non-"prurient" use for this device, folks. It is designed and used solely for the purpose of human pleasure. That, of course, bothers the hell out of some people, but there it is.
11:00:34 AM 
|
|
