NO DILDO FOR YOU!!!

[Lazy8s]

Originally posted by: Bryophyte

Originally posted by: Lazy8s

Originally posted by: Bryophyte

Originally posted by: Lazy8s

Originally posted by: Geekbabe
I feel really sorry for MrsSkoorb 😀

haha are you kidding me? She'll have no problem getting some from her husband after the baby drought, she'll be squirting him off with her boobs, err I mean beating him off with a stick. 😉

You've never been around a pregnant woman, have you? Do you think they go 9 months with no sex? You might have to use mace to keep your pregnant SO away from you during the last trimester. 😕

I meant after giving birth, it's not like it's easy on them. And with as little sleep as they get it's not going to help the post-birth sex life much.

Post birth sex life? What is that? You mean that people have sex during the first month after birth? Damn. Never happened to me.

....exactly my original point....

 

[Mookow]

NO DILDO FOR YOU!!!

^^^ Four words that strike fear into Fausto's soul

 

[fredtam]

Originally posted by: Lazy8s

Originally posted by: RagingBITCH

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: RagingBITCH
Ouch, my rep is taking a beating 🙁

You had a "rep?"

😛

Good enough to have my own dildo! 😛 I should sell that on the AT forum gear website 🙂

"The Official RagingBITCH Dildo: Fausto Approved!"

I can't find the site while I'm at work but one year for christmas I was trying to find a...uhhh....sexual gift for a g/f and I ran across a site that sells a kit to make a candle out of your genitals. It was fooking hilarious, they had one for men and women, if I could find it I would order it just for fun.

Google:
Clone your Bone/Match your Snatch

 

[fredtam]

Seriously wtf does it matter? They are not keeping the people of Alabama from using dildos. They are prohibiting the sale of them. They can use mail order and internet. They just don't want the stores. Mail order is chaeper and has more of a selection. Most adult stores I've been in have sh1tty selection and are way overpriced. They are doing the people of Alabama a favor.

 

[Kadarin]

Originally posted by: fredtam
Seriously wtf does it matter? They are not keeping the people of Alabama from using dildos. They are prohibiting the sale of them. They can use mail order and internet. They just don't want the stores. Mail order is chaeper and has more of a selection. Most adult stores I've been in have sh1tty selection and are way overpriced. They are doing the people of Alabama a favor.

RTFA. It goes far beyond the mere ban on sex toys, and into matters regarding privacy rights.

 

[Amused]

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

Originally posted by: Fausto

Originally posted by: Astaroth33
When your government prohibits the sale of sex toys, you have to realize that any illusion that you live in a "free country" has just gone out the window. Who's the "victim" in this "crime"?

Depends on how big the dildo is and who's on the receiving end. 😛



Seriously tho, good point. 😛

Should post this in P&N too Fausto, the local P&N Getapo will be thrilled to see the results of their hard work.

You know, to be honest I cannot think of a single person on these boards, no matter how conservative they are, who would support this law or ruling.

Take a look at the thread in P&N, as I knew would be, the NeoCons are all for the Ban.

Really? All I saw were people opposed to courts overturning the ban.

And while I understand their not wanting courts to legislate from the bench, I have to disagree. The courts are there to also make sure that laws do not violate our constitutional rights.

Not only does this violate sexual privacy, but it is anti-business. And you KNOW how much I despise the hampering of free and unfettered trade!

PS. feel free to steal this libertarian argument and make it your own 😀

 

[fredtam]

Originally posted by: Astaroth33

Originally posted by: fredtam
Seriously wtf does it matter? They are not keeping the people of Alabama from using dildos. They are prohibiting the sale of them. They can use mail order and internet. They just don't want the stores. Mail order is chaeper and has more of a selection. Most adult stores I've been in have sh1tty selection and are way overpriced. They are doing the people of Alabama a favor.

RTFA. It goes far beyond the mere ban on sex toys, and into matters regarding privacy rights.

How?

The article says they are not basing the decision on privacy:
"If we were to accept the invitation to recognize a right to sexual intimacy," Birch added, "this right would theoretically encompass such activities as prostitution, obscenity and adult incest ? even if we were to limit the right to consenting adults."

How is preventing the sale of dildos infringe on the right of people to intamacy?

 

[Kadarin]

Originally posted by: fredtam

Originally posted by: Astaroth33

Originally posted by: fredtam
Seriously wtf does it matter? They are not keeping the people of Alabama from using dildos. They are prohibiting the sale of them. They can use mail order and internet. They just don't want the stores. Mail order is chaeper and has more of a selection. Most adult stores I've been in have sh1tty selection and are way overpriced. They are doing the people of Alabama a favor.

RTFA. It goes far beyond the mere ban on sex toys, and into matters regarding privacy rights.

How?

The article says they are not basing the decision on privacy:
"If we were to accept the invitation to recognize a right to sexual intimacy," Birch added, "this right would theoretically encompass such activities as prostitution, obscenity and adult incest ? even if we were to limit the right to consenting adults."

How is preventing the sale of dildos infringe on the right of people to intamacy?

Again, RTFA. They ARE making their decision based on privacy. It's just that their decision is "no".

 

[fredtam]

Originally posted by: Astaroth33

Originally posted by: fredtam

Originally posted by: Astaroth33

Originally posted by: fredtam
Seriously wtf does it matter? They are not keeping the people of Alabama from using dildos. They are prohibiting the sale of them. They can use mail order and internet. They just don't want the stores. Mail order is chaeper and has more of a selection. Most adult stores I've been in have sh1tty selection and are way overpriced. They are doing the people of Alabama a favor.

RTFA. It goes far beyond the mere ban on sex toys, and into matters regarding privacy rights.

How?

The article says they are not basing the decision on privacy:
"If we were to accept the invitation to recognize a right to sexual intimacy," Birch added, "this right would theoretically encompass such activities as prostitution, obscenity and adult incest ? even if we were to limit the right to consenting adults."

How is preventing the sale of dildos infringe on the right of people to intamacy?

Again, RTFA. They ARE making their decision based on privacy. It's just that their decision is "no".

The law does not prohibit the possession of sex devices.

from another article:

The court ruled the state has a legal right to regulate the sale of sex toys and decided the Constitution doesn't include a right to sexual privacy.

from another

ban affects only commercial sales, and does not preclude people's private activities.

"First, it applies only to sales of sexual devices; it does not apply to possession, use or importation of such devices," wrote assistant attorney general Charles Campbell. "Thus no one is empowered to go peeking into bedrooms under this law and people can legally buy sexual devices elsewhere and bring them back to Alabama."

Again how does this go into privacy rights.

 

[ViRGE]

Originally posted by: fredtam

The court ruled the state has a legal right to regulate the sale of sex toys and decided the Constitution doesn't include a right to sexual privacy.

 

[Kadarin]

Originally posted by: fredtam

Originally posted by: Astaroth33

Originally posted by: fredtam

Originally posted by: Astaroth33

Originally posted by: fredtam
Seriously wtf does it matter? They are not keeping the people of Alabama from using dildos. They are prohibiting the sale of them. They can use mail order and internet. They just don't want the stores. Mail order is chaeper and has more of a selection. Most adult stores I've been in have sh1tty selection and are way overpriced. They are doing the people of Alabama a favor.

RTFA. It goes far beyond the mere ban on sex toys, and into matters regarding privacy rights.

How?

The article says they are not basing the decision on privacy:
"If we were to accept the invitation to recognize a right to sexual intimacy," Birch added, "this right would theoretically encompass such activities as prostitution, obscenity and adult incest ? even if we were to limit the right to consenting adults."

How is preventing the sale of dildos infringe on the right of people to intamacy?

Again, RTFA. They ARE making their decision based on privacy. It's just that their decision is "no".

The law does not prohibit the possession of sex devices.

from another article:

The court ruled the state has a legal right to regulate the sale of sex toys and decided the Constitution doesn't include a right to sexual privacy.

from another

ban affects only commercial sales, and does not preclude people's private activities.

"First, it applies only to sales of sexual devices; it does not apply to possession, use or importation of such devices," wrote assistant attorney general Charles Campbell. "Thus no one is empowered to go peeking into bedrooms under this law and people can legally buy sexual devices elsewhere and bring them back to Alabama."

Again how does this go into privacy rights.

Specifically because the court ruled that the Constitution doesn't include a right to sexual privacy. I understand that the intent isn't to ban sex toys per se, but to prevent establishment of local adult bookstores and whatnot, but I just don't like the precedent.

 

[yukichigai]

Originally posted by: fredtam
Again how does this go into privacy rights.

Because the decision specifically mentions that they're saying sexual privacy is not valid. They aren't saying it doesn't apply to this case, they're saying that it shouldn't exist. Read what the judge said about "sexual privacy would allow prostitution, etc." That's how this gets into privacy.

The decision sets a dangerous precedent which could re-awaken puritanical laws about when you can have sex, how, who with, and for what purposes.

 

[fredtam]

Originally posted by: Astaroth33

Originally posted by: fredtam

Originally posted by: Astaroth33

Originally posted by: fredtam

Originally posted by: Astaroth33

Originally posted by: fredtam
Seriously wtf does it matter? They are not keeping the people of Alabama from using dildos. They are prohibiting the sale of them. They can use mail order and internet. They just don't want the stores. Mail order is chaeper and has more of a selection. Most adult stores I've been in have sh1tty selection and are way overpriced. They are doing the people of Alabama a favor.

RTFA. It goes far beyond the mere ban on sex toys, and into matters regarding privacy rights.

How?

The article says they are not basing the decision on privacy:
"If we were to accept the invitation to recognize a right to sexual intimacy," Birch added, "this right would theoretically encompass such activities as prostitution, obscenity and adult incest ? even if we were to limit the right to consenting adults."

How is preventing the sale of dildos infringe on the right of people to intamacy?

Again, RTFA. They ARE making their decision based on privacy. It's just that their decision is "no".

The law does not prohibit the possession of sex devices.

from another article:

The court ruled the state has a legal right to regulate the sale of sex toys and decided the Constitution doesn't include a right to sexual privacy.

from another

ban affects only commercial sales, and does not preclude people's private activities.

"First, it applies only to sales of sexual devices; it does not apply to possession, use or importation of such devices," wrote assistant attorney general Charles Campbell. "Thus no one is empowered to go peeking into bedrooms under this law and people can legally buy sexual devices elsewhere and bring them back to Alabama."

Again how does this go into privacy rights.

Specifically because the court ruled that the Constitution doesn't include a right to sexual privacy. I understand that the intent isn't to ban sex toys per se, but to prevent establishment of local adult bookstores and whatnot, but I just don't like the precedent.

They just don't want this law to ruling to set a precedent.

 

[fredtam]

Originally posted by: yukichigai

Originally posted by: fredtam
Again how does this go into privacy rights.

Because the decision specifically mentions that they're saying sexual privacy is not valid. They aren't saying it doesn't apply to this case, they're saying that it shouldn't exist. Read what the judge said about "sexual privacy would allow prostitution, etc." That's how this gets into privacy.

The decision sets a dangerous precedent which could re-awaken puritanical laws about when you can have sex, how, who with, and for what purposes.

You read the 64 pages? They are saying that they can not uphold the previous court ruling because the constitution does not guarantee you a right to sexual privacy. It does not and therefore it is a state issue. No different than other states. How many can you get a prostitute in?

 

[FiLeZz]

Originally posted by: Fausto
From AJC.com

Court OKs Alabama sex toy ban


The federal appeals court in Atlanta has upheld Alabama's law banning "sex toys" by refusing to hold that people have a fundamental right to sexual privacy.

In a 2-1 ruling issued Wednesday, the 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals refused to overturn the 1998 Anti-Obscenity Enforcement Act. The law forbids the commercial distribution of devices designed to stimulate sexual activity. It does not criminalize the possession of the devices.

The lawsuit was brought by both sellers and users of sex toys. Their lawyers contended the law violates the constitutional rights to privacy and to personal autonomy.

The 11th Circuit declined to agree that a fundamental right to sexual intimacy was created last year when the U.S. Supreme Court invalidated a Texas law making homosexual sodomy a crime. Writing for the majority, Judge Stanley Birch said the nation's highest court declined to go that far.

"If we were to accept the invitation to recognize a right to sexual intimacy," Birch added, "this right would theoretically encompass such activities as prostitution, obscenity and adult incest ? even if we were to limit the right to consenting adults."

In dissent, Judge Rosemary Barkett called the majority's analysis "demeaning and dismissive."

"It is about the tradition of American citizens from the inception of our democracy to value the constitutionally protected right to be left alone in the privacy of their bedrooms and personal relationships," Barkett wrote.

Atlanta lawyer Alan Begner, who said a similar Georgia law was upheld by the state Supreme Court in 1997, said the Alabama sex toy case should be taken up by the U.S. Supreme Court on appeal. Begner said a decision on whether people have a fundamental right to sexual intimacy could ultimately decide the constitutionality of same-sex marriages.

Only Fusto can come up with this stuff..
Great by the way!

 

[yukichigai]

Originally posted by: fredtam
You read the 64 pages? They are saying that they can not uphold the previous court ruling because the constitution does not guarantee you a right to sexual privacy. It does not and therefore it is a state issue. No different than other states. How many can you get a prostitute in?

The constitutional guarantee of sexual privacy has been used as the basis for several other legal challenges, including the one which overturned the Texas Sodomy Law.

FYI, Nevada is the only state you can get a prostitute in legally. Not sure what your point is with that, but those are the facts.

 

[fredtam]

Originally posted by: yukichigai

Originally posted by: fredtam
You read the 64 pages? They are saying that they can not uphold the previous court ruling because the constitution does not guarantee you a right to sexual privacy. It does not and therefore it is a state issue. No different than other states. How many can you get a prostitute in?

The constitutional guarantee of sexual privacy has been used as the basis for several other legal challenges, including the one which overturned the Texas Sodomy Law.

FYI, Nevada is the only state you can get a prostitute in legally. Not sure what your point is with that, but those are the facts.

OK why is prostitution illegal again? How can the government say that two consenting adults can't trade sex for money?

They are not deciding the issue on privacy. They are refusing to in order to not set a precedent when privacy is clearly not the issue in this case. If they downed the ban because it infringed on privacy (which it does not)
it would set a precedent and other cases in which privacy isn't the central issue like prostitution could be argued for. The Texas sodomy law could not be used as a precedent because again the ban does not infringe on privacy.

I phrased my response wrong earlier.

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: yukichigai

Originally posted by: fredtam
Again how does this go into privacy rights.

Because the decision specifically mentions that they're saying sexual privacy is not valid. They aren't saying it doesn't apply to this case, they're saying that it shouldn't exist. Read what the judge said about "sexual privacy would allow prostitution, etc." That's how this gets into privacy.

The decision sets a dangerous precedent which could re-awaken puritanical laws about when you can have sex, how, who with, and for what purposes.

"when you can have sex, how, who with"

Well if the Feds are going to force me to sex with Elisha Cuthbert and how, then it's alright :thumbsup:

 

[Amused]

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

Originally posted by: yukichigai

Originally posted by: fredtam
Again how does this go into privacy rights.

Because the decision specifically mentions that they're saying sexual privacy is not valid. They aren't saying it doesn't apply to this case, they're saying that it shouldn't exist. Read what the judge said about "sexual privacy would allow prostitution, etc." That's how this gets into privacy.

The decision sets a dangerous precedent which could re-awaken puritanical laws about when you can have sex, how, who with, and for what purposes.

"when you can have sex, how, who with"

Well if the Feds are going to force me to sex with Elisha Cuthbert and how, then it's alright :thumbsup:

With my luck, it would be with Roseanne Bar. 🙁

 

[Mookow]

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: dmcowen674
Well if the Feds are going to force me to sex with Elisha Cuthbert and how, then it's alright :thumbsup:

With my luck, it would be with Roseanne Bar. 🙁

Nah, you'd probably get Rosie O'Donnell.

 

[Amused]

Originally posted by: Mookow

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: dmcowen674
Well if the Feds are going to force me to sex with Elisha Cuthbert and how, then it's alright :thumbsup:

With my luck, it would be with Roseanne Bar. 🙁

Nah, you'd probably get Rosie O'Donnell.

You're a very evil man.

 

[Mookow]

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: Mookow

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: dmcowen674
Well if the Feds are going to force me to sex with Elisha Cuthbert and how, then it's alright :thumbsup:

With my luck, it would be with Roseanne Bar. 🙁

Nah, you'd probably get Rosie O'Donnell.

You're a very evil man.

That was evil. Very evil would be "Rosie O'Donnell with a strap on".