05 October 2006

In Which Cheryl Thanks GOD (again) She's not a Texan!

I love Molly Ivins! I used to read her semi-religiously when I lived in South Jersey and she was in the Courier-Post. Well, now she's doin' video!

In my AlterNet Peek this morning, I found a snippet about the Texas dildo ban. Seems that if you own "six or more obscene devices" you are "presumed to possess them with intent to promote the same." And sex toy stores are not allowed to sell their products as, well, sex toys. They are "educational devices" used in "safer sex" demonstrations. Plus, if it's phallic-shaped, i.e. "representational," it's not allowed to vibrate. If it vibrates, it's not allowed to look like a penis.

So that's the reason for those silly little faces on the Pearl-type vibes!

Hey, I got your safer sex demonstration right here, Baby!

The Ivins video is posted on Feministing and you can get to it here. It's as hilarious as Molly always is. Check out the cute butch dyke talking about "losing her audience" during the safer sex demonstration she has planned for the strap-on and harness she's purchasing!

I wish I could find the video myself to post it here but a search of YouTube did not produce it. But, hey, go visit Jessica and the crew at Feministing anyway...and root around a bit. Good folks there.

tags: anal sex / dildo / lesbian sexuality / safer sex / sex / sexuality education / sexual orientation / "sodomy" / Texas / Texas politics / US politics / What lesbians do in bed


At October 06, 2006 10:08 AM, Blogger Kristin said...

"presumed to possess them with intent to promote the same"

Exactly. Hell, yes. And why is that wrong?

There's a lot of science going on in Texas. Outside MIT and the Silicon Valley, it's always been one of the country's leaders in scientific research. So why are they still in the dark and scary ages of human sexuality? I want an answer and they'd better not blame it on Jesus. Again.

At October 06, 2006 12:11 PM, Blogger Cheryl said...

And why is that wrong?

Because then the l-l-lesbians will use them to do evil things!

So why are they still in the dark and scary ages of human sexuality?

Because God forbid two (or more) people should get off with via anything other than "one man and one woman in the missionary position." [Note: 'Doggie style' is permitted on Saturdays only.]

I want an answer and they'd better not blame it on Jesus.

They won't because, "It's the gays! It's the gays!"

Do you think things would get any better if "Kinky" were elected governor??

At October 06, 2006 3:06 PM, Blogger Kristin said...

We may as well try Kinky. All the freaks they've had in office didn't work.

Bedroom legislation -in which they make up rules about how you can or can't get it on- seems so silly, like a giant waste of time and tax money because you really can't regulate something like that. Then these laws come around to bite someone on the ass in a very non-erotic way when used against people as 'evidence' of character or lack thereof. One thing leads to another. Allow these laws to pass (or not be crossed out) and you're faced with what we're talking about here. Before we even get to talking about party favors - or whatever the Houston-approved euphemism is for sex toys - they need to establish freedom to fuck. Texas and lots of other places in the States and the world. Again it comes down to science.

Until same sex sexuality is recognized as NORMAL HUMAN BEHAVIOR I expect to get nowhere fast. I mean, where's the substance in their theory? They understand aerospace and microbio but they can't wrap their heads around head? It just doesn't make sense.

I need to read up on this otherwise I'll just be running in circles. I need to figure out where they're coming from. Like that's really going to clear it up for me.

At October 06, 2006 7:39 PM, Blogger Cheryl said...

Well, you can regulate sexual behavior but it requires something I hope my country would never allow...constant surveillance. I remember the scene from 1984 (the movie) where John Hurt and Suzanna Hamilton went way out into the countryside to make love. While that might be a wonderful setting, the need to seek that seclusion was so depressing one could not enjoy the scene.

I know it's been said many times before but that book and that movie keep coming back into my head...that and the one with Michael York where he lives in a society that euthanizes everyone at the age of 30. (Just looked it up...it was Logan's Run.) Or Farenheit 451. The Handmaid's Tale. Alas, Babylon.

I don't get it, either. It's not just about same-gender sex, it's all sex. They don't want unmarried people copulating, married people fucking other people (married or no), married people fucking each other's asses...hell, nobody gets to fuck an ass (or have their ass fucked). It's the specificity that scares me. I can almost see Natasha Richardson lying back in Faye Dunaway's arms as Robert Duvall approaches.

I keep saying that sex needs to not be held in such reverance. It's a body function. It's something you could share, or not. It feels really nice. You could be in love or just in lust, whatever feels good for you.

Live and let live and all that.

Good luck on your reading. Be sure to let me know if you can figure tham out.


Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home

Locations of visitors to this page

  • *CmIB = Claiming my Inner Bitch
  • *CmIB-E = Claiming my Inner Bitch Enterprises
  • *MBCP = May be considered patriarchetypical (c) 2006 CmIB-E
  • *NOP = No Ordinary Princess, my other blog
  • *THAC = The Hospital Around the Corner