Interesting article from a few days back on Slate, dealing with a ban on sales & purchases of sex toys in Alabama. Basically you can still import & use these items within state boundaries, but selling them will land you a hefty fine and jailtime.

I can just see Vincent trying to explain this one to Jules: It's illegal to BUY it, it's legal to OWN it, and if you're the proprietor of a hash bar...well it's Alabama not Amsterdam so they'll throw your ass in jail.

Jules: Shit that's all there is to it I'm fuckin' going!

But seriously, this is ridiculous. Reverendmother had a 'Yes, in 2004' post the other day, well, this is my Yes, in mother f'n 2004. (I'll throw in the obvious disclaimer that I'm not speaking for RM on this one.)

I don't see how it's still up for debate, in America in this day and age, that people have a universal right to privacy in their bedrooms - so long as they are not putting anyone at risk for serious injury or death (you know, the REALLY kinky stuff.) People are free to object on grounds of religious morality and I totally respect that, but last I checked this country was founded on the separation of church vs. state.

But clearly, these state laws on the books (anti sodomy, toys, etc.) are grounded in religious tradition - in the morality of that area's majority. Because the government's primary function is to protect us from harm, and consentual adult sex, whether it be heterosexual or homosexual or whatever, does not harm.

Ok ok, I know that opens a whole ugly can of worms, but maybe we can all at least agree that outside of putting your immortal soul at risk to burn in Hell for all eternity, any "other" sex does not harm the body, minus perhaps a little chaffing or bleeding. Or maybe uless you have a heart condition. ...And sometimes she never called like she promised she would! and that leaves some psychological scars. Uh, but that's it.

And yes, there's AIDS and sexually transmitted diseases out there, but objections to any sexual activity besides missionary-style reproductive sex aren't based on those concerns. You can be just as deviant and promiscuous and "transmitting" in the missionary position as you can meeting some dude at a West Hollywood bar with a rainbow flag draped on the facade. These activists aren't out there to curb AIDS, their worry is sexual depravity - pure and simple.

I think the most interesting point in that article is how the famous Lawrence V. Texas ruling from a couple years back, seemingly a huge victory for the supporters of gay rights and sexual privacy, actually had such a vague ruling that any state judge on any point of the political spectrum can plausibly interpret how they see fit. This latest Alabama ruling ironically has Lawrence V. Texas to thank, among other cases.

Just remember folks: Next time you visit Gulf Shores, leave the AstroGlide at home.