Plum Crazy

Hello citizens of South Carolina.* Do you realize what your legislators are getting up to now? Or, perhaps more euphemestically, not getting up? Do they not have more important things to focus on? Apparently not, as in a move to join their other Southern brethren, such as Alabama, there is a bill in front of the South Carolina legislature to ban the selling of sex toys. I kid you not.

Some choice provisions, although at the risk of sounding bloggery, read the whole thing:

A person disseminates a sexual device within the meaning of this article if it is designed or marketed as useful primarily for the stimulation of human genital organs and solely for the sale of prurient interest in sex.

Oh no! Not the horrid "prurient interest in sex." Yes, South Carolina, apparently your government feels that you should only be allowed to exhibit a wholesome interest in sex. Which, I am certain, means sex only within the confines of marriage. Possibly even more limited than that, as in sex solely for reproductive reasons within the confines of marriage. Now, if a person's religious beliefs lead them to consider sex outside marriage and/or non-reproductive sex to be sins, that's all well for them. I hope they have a fine day for it. However, why is it the business of the government to legislate in favor of that? If no coercion is used and the people involved are above the age of consent, why should the government be at all involved?

Now note the definitions of "sexual conduct" within this bill:

vaginal, anal, or oral intercourse, whether actual or simulated, normal or perverted, whether between human beings, animals, or a combination thereof;

"Normal or perverted"? I'm at a loss here, as I'm really unsure what constitutes "perverted" intercourse. Anything other than the missionary position? No, really, what? As an aside, I would favor bills outlawing bestiality, as animals cannot consent.

masturbation, excretory functions, or lewd exhibition, actual or simulated, of the genitals, pubic hair, anus, vulva, or female breast nipples including male or female genitals in a state of sexual stimulation or arousal or covered male genitals in a discernably turgid state;

Ooh, pubic hair. Better wax, ladies, or else your pubic hair might peek out from your bathing suit, and, well, that might be considered lewd. Unless, of course, the government wishes to require women only wear the long bathing costumes of the 1920s. I suppose that means no speedos for you too, guys. Also, gentlemen, no sexual fantasies in public. Your genitals might be discerned in a turgid state, and, apparently, no good can come from that.

an act or condition that depicts actual or simulated touching, caressing, or fondling of, or other similar physical contact with, the covered or exposed genitals, pubic or anal regions, or female breast nipple, whether alone or between humans, animals, or a human and an animal, of the same or opposite sex, in an act of actual or apparent sexual stimulation or gratification; or

All right, I can bow to the societal taboo against the exhibition of women's nipples, whilst the exhibition of men's nipples is considered ok. However, limiting sexual conduct including nipples only to when it involves the "actual or simulated touching, caressing, or fondling of..." women's nipples? Is there some non-sexual manner in which men's nipples get touched, caressed, or fondled? As I'm unaware of one, and I do know that men enjoy having their nipples touched, caressed, and fondled in the midst of sex. Whereas mothers who breast-feed actually do have non-sexual reason for their nipples to be exhibited.

So, citizens of South Carolina, if this unfortunate piece of legislation is passed, allowing the government to make further inroads into the privacy of your bedroom, you'll have more reason to thank science for the Internets. However, I strongly suggest you let your legislators know that this invasion of your privacy is unwarranted. If, on the other hand, a majority of you support this legislation, let me know. I'll be sure never to move to South Carolina. Just on principle, if for no other reason.**

Bill found via Pandagon via Feministe.

*This includes a special hello to regular reader Rick DeMent. I feel quite confident that Rick does not support this ludicrous piece of legislation. Rick, New York has plenty of IT jobs, so if you ever wish to become a latte-swilling blue state liberal, e-mail me your resume, and I'll see what I can do. Although I seriously recommend cafe au lait over latte. It's just cafe-au-lait-swilling blue state liberal doesn't trip off the tongue as lightly.

**Not that you'd want an annoying New Yorker like me anyway.