Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Bill would make sale of sex toys illegal in South Carolina
AP ^ | 4/23/6 | Seanna Adcox

Posted on 04/23/2006 5:47:00 AM PDT by Crackingham

Lucy’s Love Shop employee Wanda Gillespie said she was flabbergasted that South Carolina’s Legislature is considering outlawing sex toys. But banning the sale of sex toys is actually quite common in some Southern states.

The South Carolina bill, proposed by Republican Rep. Ralph Davenport, would make it a felony to sell devices used primarily for sexual stimulation and allow law enforcement to seize sex toys from raided businesses.

"That would be the most terrible thing in the world," said Ms. Gillespie, an employee the Anderson shop. "That is just flabbergasting to me. We are supposed to be in a free country, and we’re supposed to be adults who can decide what want to do and don’t want to do in the privacy of our own homes."

Ms. Gillespie, 49, said she has worked in the store for nearly 20 years and has seen people from every walk of life, including "every Sunday churchgoers."

"I know of multiple marriages that sex toys have sold because some people need that. The people who are riding us (the adult novelty industry) so hard are probably at home buying it (sex toys and novelties) on the Internet. It’s ridiculous." The measure would add sex toys to the state’s obscenity laws, which already prohibit the dissemination and advertisement of obscene materials.

People convicted under obscenity laws face up to five years in prison and a $10,000 fine.


TOPICS: Culture/Society; Extended News; Government; News/Current Events; US: South Carolina
KEYWORDS: appliances; gardening; talibornagains
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 441-445 next last

1 posted on 04/23/2006 5:47:04 AM PDT by Crackingham
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Crackingham; upchuck; traviskicks

I guess since our efficient and wonderful SC state government has solved all of the other problems the state had, it's time to ban sex toys.


2 posted on 04/23/2006 5:51:04 AM PDT by Salo (First they came for the dildos....but I was silent because I was not a dildo....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Crackingham

Dumb...


3 posted on 04/23/2006 5:51:48 AM PDT by DB (©)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Crackingham

A goofy bill, which yet falls short of “the most terrible thing in the world.”


4 posted on 04/23/2006 5:51:51 AM PDT by dighton
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Crackingham

bump


5 posted on 04/23/2006 5:52:13 AM PDT by KSCITYBOY
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Crackingham

" The South Carolina bill, proposed by Republican Rep. Ralph Davenport, would make it a felony to sell devices ..."

A felony ???? A married couple born the " land of the free " wants to play with some " sex toys " and we're going to make it a felony to sell such toys ??? Is this really a PRIORITY ???? Unreal . Ralph is a jerk .


6 posted on 04/23/2006 5:52:58 AM PDT by sushiman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Crackingham
"That would be the most terrible thing in the world," said Ms. Gillespie, an employee the Anderson shop.

On the bright side, produce markets would be bustling.

7 posted on 04/23/2006 5:54:12 AM PDT by TheRightGuy (ERROR CODE 018974523: Random Tagline Compiler Failure)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Crackingham

>>>>Republican Rep. Ralph Davenport, would make it a felony to sell devices used primarily for sexual stimulation

Maybe his next piece of legislation should be to ban tight jeans and push-up bras, so nobody will get turned on by looking. Then there are the nylon nighties.....

When a favorite insult by dems is to call opponents "taliban republicans", this dip makes it easy for them.


8 posted on 04/23/2006 5:54:30 AM PDT by tlb
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Crackingham

Which religious wacko's are for this?


9 posted on 04/23/2006 5:56:09 AM PDT by FightThePower!
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Crackingham

Article author Seanna Adcox may have to change her name if the bill passes.


10 posted on 04/23/2006 5:57:31 AM PDT by edpc
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Crackingham

Good!


11 posted on 04/23/2006 5:57:36 AM PDT by ExcursionGuy84 ("Jesus, Your Love takes my breath away.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: FightThePower!

See post 11.


12 posted on 04/23/2006 5:58:55 AM PDT by Salo (Then they came for the vibrators....but I was silent because I was not a vibrator....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Crackingham
"The people who are riding us so hard...."

Interesting choice of words, madam!
13 posted on 04/23/2006 6:01:02 AM PDT by jdm (Trading Helen Thomas pics online since 1996.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: 2A Patriot; 2nd amendment mama; 4everontheRight; 77Jimmy; Abbeville Conservative; acf2906; ...
South Carolina Ping

Add me to the list. / Remove me from the list.
14 posted on 04/23/2006 6:04:01 AM PDT by upchuck (Wikipedia.com - the most unbelievable web site in the world.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: TheRightGuy; aculeus; Senator Bedfellow; Petronski; Billthedrill; Larry Lucido; Constitution Day; ..
On the bright side, produce markets would be bustling.

Davenport was bribed by la famiglia Zucchini.

15 posted on 04/23/2006 6:05:06 AM PDT by dighton
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Salo

AA and AAA Battery stocks will tank because of this !


16 posted on 04/23/2006 6:07:12 AM PDT by Renegade
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Crackingham
"We are supposed to be in a free country ..."

We are. You happen to be in a not-so-free state.

Now, the beauty of federalism is ... you can move to another state if this issue is that important to you!

Certainly the people of South Carolina can decide through the legislative process how they want to live. You wouldn't deny them that, would you?

Are you saying that you should you be allowed to force your perversions on them in the name of "freedom"? What, freedom for me but not for thee?

17 posted on 04/23/2006 6:08:44 AM PDT by robertpaulsen
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Crackingham

I would love to know which version of Christianity Rep. Davenport subscribes to and what Biblical passage he is basing this on.


18 posted on 04/23/2006 6:10:01 AM PDT by opticks
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Crackingham

Worried about the wrong thing.


19 posted on 04/23/2006 6:11:06 AM PDT by Jackknife ( "I bet after seeing us, George Washington would sue us for calling him 'father'." óWill Rogers)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Crackingham

Hmmmmm. . . guess that just leaves the rental market.


20 posted on 04/23/2006 6:11:24 AM PDT by Lee'sGhost (Crom!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 441-445 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson