Texas Prevents People From Owning More Than 6 Dildos. Now Lawmakers Want to Ban Sex Toys at Walmart.
Texas Prevents People From Owning More Than 6 Dildos. Now Lawmakers Want to Ban Sex Toys at Walmart.
Texas is the land where regulation is always second, or so they say. However, it’s also a state where politicians have chosen to regulate oddly specific...
cross-posted from: https://ponder.cat/post/952397
You're viewing a single thread.
Exqueeze me? The fuck? Is that real?
Edit: yes. Although it’s mired in legislative gobbledygook:
Sec. 43.23. OBSCENITY. (a) A person commits an offense if, knowing its content and character, he wholesale promotes or possesses with intent to wholesale promote any obscene material or obscene device.
(b) Except as provided by Subsection (h), an offense under Subsection (a) is a state jail felony.
(c) A person commits an offense if, knowing its content and character, he:
(1) promotes or possesses with intent to promote any obscene material or obscene device; or
(2) produces, presents, or directs an obscene performance or participates in a portion thereof that is obscene or that contributes to its obscenity.
(d) Except as provided by Subsection (h), an offense under Subsection (c) is a Class A misdemeanor.
(e) A person who promotes or wholesale promotes obscene material or an obscene device or possesses the same with intent to promote or wholesale promote it in the course of his business is presumed to do so with knowledge of its content and character.
(f) A person who possesses six or more obscene devices or identical or similar obscene articles is presumed to possess them with intent to promote the same.
So, women seem to be exempt (“he possesses with intent”) and it is a “performance”. Whatever that means. And it’s a misdemeanor.
But it’s real. Can have six dildos in a performance, but more than six? Oooh that’s a paddlin’.
The documentary, Dildo Diaries, explores the topic in great, and sometimes hilarious detail. I happened to see this film around 2003, at a small art cinema, with Laura Barton and Judy Wilder present. So afterwards we had a Q&A. At that time one could sell/posses a 'representative model' for demonstrating how to put on a condom, but it was illegal if it also vibrated. And one could sell/ possess a non-anatomically correct 'dildo', which could legally vibrate. But one could not sell / purchase both from the same store. There were/ are literally stores that have an interior door dividing the two types. Also, if I recall correctly, there were limits on how many one could have, and categories including 'collectors' for those that had more than 6, I think.
https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0332604/plotsummary/?ref_=tt_ov_pl
Well, I find this law to be obscene, so I guess it's illegal.
One mans obscenity is another man’s pleasure. I would normally say the Supreme Court will strike this down quickly, but you know where we are
That gives me a hell of an idea for a stage act up here in NYC
That law looks like it's written so that they could arrest me for having 6 books they didn't like. Obscene could mean anything here. It just screams "selective punishment".
It is defined earlier in the law but it was too long and boring to paste in. It still boils down to "obscene" items, which - yeah.
Typically in legalese like this, “he” isn’t denoting only people who use that pronoun, it’s understood to apply to all people.
The law as you posted seems to be equating owning more than six “obscene devices” with an intent to sell them, or use them as part of a business, whether that actually is the intent or not. It also notes that have multiple “devices” that are the same or similar is also an offense (so having two identical or even similar sex toys even if you have fewer than six total would also be a misdemeanor).
But you can claim they are for medical or psychiatric purpose and have as many as you need:
(g) It is an affirmative defense to prosecution under this section that the person who possesses or promotes material or a device proscribed by this section does so for a bona fide medical, psychiatric, judicial, legislative, or law enforcement purpose
Typically in legalese like this, “he” isn’t denoting only people who use that pronoun, it’s understood to apply to all people.
Yeah but it's an interesting defense. There are laws that only apply to women, aren't there? And they dont' use "he". You'd lose, but it'd be an interesting case.
And the definitions section was too long to paste in, but you can get there from the link in the article.
you can legally own more guns than sex toys in the Lone Star State
I mean, unless it's defined elsewhere, it's leaving an awful lot of space to interpret "obscenity"...
It is defined earlier in the statute. You can get to it through the link in the article, it goes right there.