Bill would make sale of sex toys illegal in South Carolina

AP ^ | 4/23/6 | Seanna Adcox

[robertpaulsen]

"a couple playing with toys in their bedroom is non of your damn business"

Did you think this law affects what goes on in the bedroom? Now, maybe you're too busy and can't be bothered with reading the article -- I understand -- but didn't you at least read the title of the article? Here, let me post it for you, again.

Bill would make sale of sex toys illegal in South Carolina.

Did you see that? SALE. The SALE of sex toys. Not the possession. Not the use. The SALE. Get it now? Don't you feel foolish?

The citizens of South Carolina appear to be just as offended by these stores marketing, advertising, displaying, and selling these sex toys as they are offended by the presence of crack houses or "ho's on the street". They consider such blatant selling to be obscene. They want it stopped. I suppose you think they have no right to do that.

I read nothing in the article about prohibiting couples from playing with toys in their bedroom. Perhaps you can point that out to me.

[RedStateRocker]

Local zoning ordinances are quite sufficient to deal with what business operate where, this is about busybodies and pandering to wannabe theocrats and closet pervs, who are the only people who would give a damn.

[Mikey]

"Standing sex leads to dancing."

Um, what if the dancing includes touching and that touch leads to a stimulating effect upon one or each of the dancers, would that be considered a "sex toy"?

[looscnnn]

Some States are taking away guns, paulsen. - And also you ignore that most States are in effect 'licensing' carrying guns. Only two are actually not infringing on our right to bear arms.

But as paulsen would put it, that is because that is what the majority of the citizens want. It wouldn't/couldn't be that some elected lackies would do this against the citizens' wishes. After all they voted them in, and so on.

[tpaine]

Don't expect any rational answer from paulsen.. His self touted debating 'ability' doesn't extend to actually discussing the constitutional facts of concealed carry 'laws'.