|
|
![]() | ||
T H E_.H O T_.S P O T
A call to hearts
___________________ The Technology of Orgasm
R E C E N T L Y
Dr. Block's little house of sexual horrors Decade of the dick Boogie bites Strap-on epiphany Confessions of an office pervert Browse the - - - - - - - - - -
| D O C T O R ' S _O R D E R S
If my friend were to buy this collection in Alabama, not only would she be breaking the law, but whoever sold her the goods could be slapped with a $10,000 fine and up to a year in prison. Unless, of course, they could convince the pleasure police that she was using those vibrators to, uh, relax the aching muscles in her neck. In April 1998, Alabama passed an addition to the obscenity statute of the state law that "makes it unlawful to produce, distribute or otherwise sell sexual devices that are marketed primarily for the stimulation of human genital organs." Part of a bigger bill restricting licenses for strip clubs, the law argues that these sex toys are obscene and appeal to a "prurient interest." Last week, the ACLU and five women challenged the law in court as a violation of privacy -- since neither masturbation nor genital stimulation are illegal (yet). The five women included an erotica shop owner and a woman who holds immensely popular "Tupperware parties" peddling sex toys to Midwestern housewives. The judge has yet to release his decision. The premise itself is loaded with both hypocrisy and latent misogyny. There is, the Alabama officials wrote, "no fundamental right to purchase a product to use in pursuit of having an orgasm." What they should have written is that women have no fundamental right to purchase a product to use in pursuit of having an orgasm. Because while those veined, flesh-colored pseudo-penises are not legal, those displays of crotchless panties -- not to mention Viagra -- are perfectly OK. As the ACLU's memorandum argues, the Alabama obscenity code shouldn't be applied to "objects which in and of themselves do not depict sexual conduct or appeal to the prurient interest ... They are nothing more than what they purport to be -- aids to enhance or improve sex." As ACLU staff attorney Mark Lopez summed it up, "I don't think they're concerned about the deleterious effect these stores have on the community. They just banned vibrators altogether, apparently because they didn't like people using them." Presumably, the vibrator is banned as being obscene because it "lacks serious literary, artistic, political or scientific value" -- the constitutional definition for obscenity. But the irony of the Alabama law lies not in the evident hypocrisy, but in the history of the vibrator itself, which according to Rachel P. Maines in her new book, "The Technology of Orgasm," was originally conceived as a serious medical device. N E X T+P A G E | "Therapeutic massage" to cure "hysteria" - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Become a Salon member. Click here. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - VIBRATOR PHOTO COURTESY OF GOOD VIBRATIONS |
|
Arts & Entertainment | Books | Comics | Life | News | People
Politics | Sex | Tech & Business | Audio
The Free Software Project | The Movie Page
Letters | Columnists | Salon Plus
Copyright © 2000 Salon.com All rights reserved.