Why is the RW seeking to criminalize the sale of sex toys?

[Dunvegan]

What is the point of banning sex toys? What is it the right is trying to gain?

Seems like according to this DU thread and an article in this SC newspaper: "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."

Other states that ban the sell of sex toys include Alabama, Georgia, Mississippi and Texas, said Mark Lopez, an attorney for the American Civil Liberties Union.

This begs the question: What is the issue, according to right wing thinking, that makes sex toys "dangerous" enough to be outlawed?

How is a sex toy elevated to relevance enough to make it a felony danger that requires criminalizing the sale of these items?

If these products are used by consenting adults, solitary adults, or partnered/married adults alone in their homes, why the felony ban on sales? What is the harm?

What is the inherent "danger" that right wingers are afraid of/worked up over that requires a jail sentence or the involvement of the FBI, the courts, and prisons?

In other words, what is the REAL reason for this movement?

Really, I'm curious as to the RW reasoning here. Anyone have any insight into this?

[blitzen]

1. just the usual poseur piety n/t

[cantstandbush]

64. They are going to have lock up 1/3 of their base. n/t

[mhr]

81. Republican Men Can't Compete With Dildos

Republican men are adamantly opposed to anything that limits their chances for dominating woman.

This is reflexive of other policies by Republicans where they want to limit freedoms and rights.

Can't be letting the proles have too much fun.

[babylonsister]

2. Because SEX is BAD!

:eyes:

[Warpy]

3. They're "icky" to people who are terrified that somewhere

out there someone might be having the time of their life having playful, harmless and guilt free SEX.

The idea drives them completely bonkers.

[Dunvegan]

17. Follow-up question: This may be very true.

But why is it important enough to felonize sex toys over...we're talking about putting people in prison for the sale of a vibrator.

I can see saying "community zoning" to prevent a sex shop from opening it's doors in a particular community. I don't agree in the slightest that a tiny sex shop will bring down a town, but that's up to any particular locality.

What I don't get is a movement where the state criminalizes the sale anywhere in the state of any sex toy. It's extremely...well, extreme. We're not even talking porn here. Just adult toys.

What's the point of all that lawmaking and felony criminalizing the of the simple sale of 8 oz. of sculpted hypoallegenic silicone?

How does putting someone in prison for this work for the long-term aims of the right wing?

Or, is this how the right wing "plan" to balance the trade deficit with China?

[Warpy]

56. Other than wanting everybody to be as unhappy as they are

I have absolutely no clue. If I knew how their minds worked and understood them, I'd be afraid for my own sanity.

What I do know is that these people represent pure evil to a free and open society and that they must be stopped.

[Erika]

4. They want right wing theocracy in the bedroom

How dare anyone enjoy sex. Sex is OK only for procreation and they are willing to legislate it.

[HarukaTheTrophyWife]

61. You can have theocracy in the bedroom and have fun too...

www.divine-interventions.com

I read an article once that said Texas gave them the most sales.

[napi21]

5. You have corrupt morals! Don't you realize that YET?

They're been preching to you for years now. Aren't you listening????

[Erika]

6. Uh, my morals are none of their business

No appreciation of vibrators what so ever.

[napi21]

27. Ahh, but they belive it IS their business!

First, I hope you do realize what I'm saying isn't MY opinion!

I live in Ga. The RWers are taught from when they are babes, that their bible teaches them to go out and save the sinners! It is THEIR responsibility to do that! None of us are ever going to hange their mind on that!

From what I can see, our only hope is to marginalize them into the minority in hopes of silencing the drumbeats!

[Erika]

30. They are so righteous they should save the sinners?

What a laugh. Another reason why I joined Interfaith Alliance. I've had it with these religious sickos taking over our country with W's ok.

[ContraBass Black]

69. You mean morels!

;)

[pitohui]

7. it is a time waster

they don't wish to grapple w. the real issues so they create make-work for themselves

it's like the dude in arizona who every year for the last decade tries to make online poker games and sports bets illegal

like, dude, you got nothing better to worry abt?

[Dunvegan]

8. In the early days of sex toys, weren't they labeled as "marital aids?"

These felony bans would even ban the use of "marital aids" that would enhance the chances for procreation for those who require enhanced or controlled stimulation to create the conditions requisite for intra-marital procreation (which I think is a very popular "position" for the right wing.)

Seems like they're cutting off *something* to spite their faith.

[Erika]

Nah, they're just sick perverts n/t

[Whoa_Nelly]

9. Then, they better ban all guns! Too many people get off on'em!

:evilgrin:

on edit:
Oh, yeah! They better ban any of those "massage" items from the local Target, Wal-Mart, and any other department/drug store.

No more Shiatsu! No more vibrtaing chairs! :P

[havocmom]

10. Perhaps they are having trouble getting laid

and want to make sure single women have no alternative to their advances? :shrug:

Waiting for them to outlaw certain vegetables.

[Erika]

12. Are you suggesting a vibrator may be just fine?

Big smile.

[havocmom]

14. Whatever floats one's boat

and keeps them from making stupid choices out of easily addressed human needs ;)

[Dunvegan]

19. ...or floats the "little man in the boat"...

:rofl:

[darkmaestro019]

50. That's what I'm screamin.

I'm in FAVOR of masturbation, all the freakin time, in any form. Whatever Gods there are made our hands reach there for a very good reason--orgasms are fun and getting other people to give them to you sometimes results in diseases like AIDS and children. (smile)

[PublicWrath]

11. These laws are, in part at least, directed against the enjoyment

of lesbian sex. There is something about massive doubledongs that terrifies the far right. And heaven forbid that women might have some fun all by themselves.

Anyway, they think there's a commandment against taking the Phallus in vain.

[Dunvegan]

22. This makes sense. "Thou shall not make love to graven images...

...of the Holy Penis."

Women: Your choices for sexual stimulation are: Hetrosexual marriage with children.

Men: Your choices for sexual stimulation are: Hetrosexual marriage with children.

Or go to jail.

[PublicWrath]

23. take a look at some of the judicial thinking in Alabama (post #21) n/t

[PassingFair]

65. Or taking the vein in the phallus.... ....n/t

[CoffeeCat]

13. What's next...are they going to ban dancing?

Did we learn nothing from "Footloose?"

Bastards.

[havocmom]

16. Gather ye cucumbers while ye may

They are probably about to become contraband.

[CoffeeCat]

18. They came for our cucumbers, but I didn't use a cucumber...

then they came for our carrots, but I didn't use a carrot; then they came for the shower massagers, but I didn't own a shower massager. Then they came for my vibrator and everyone was too sexually frustrated to help me!

Bastards!

[Erika]

35. Try the zucchinis

Or when will they come for those?

[Jade Fox]

59. Bwhahahaha!

[Twitch14]

15. Controlling sex is the "gateway drug"....

...to controlling everything else about your life. Not only is sex one of the strongest drives built into us, it's also the most private of those drives. If someone asks us what we like to eat, we'll usually answer with no problem. But ask us how we like to have sex, and that will get you a quick "none of your business." (If not a punch in the nose.)

So if you can convince people that you have the right to tell them what isn't allowed in the bedroom, you've got a powerful wedge in the door to telling them what isn't allowed in every other part of their life.

Or it could just be sour grapes because the good, Christian RW wives don't do that..... :)

[Dunvegan]

20. Good answer. Because I not only have a problem with this invasive law...

...I'm really having a problem understanding why anyone would push for felonizing 8 oz. of sculpted hypoallergenic silicone.

Unless, like I said up-thread, this is the religous right's "plan" for balancing the trade deficit with China.

Your post makes quite a bit of sense to me, Twitch...thank you.

[FormerDittoHead]

55. ..then it's porn, then it's Playboy, then it's movies, then it's books. nt

[PublicWrath]

21. disturbing peek into the mindset of Alabama's law may be found below

Scroll down a little bit for:

11th Circuit Invokes _Bowers v. Hardwick_ to Reject Constitutional Challenge to Alabama Law Against Sex Toys

http://www.qrd.org/qrd/www/legal/lgln/11.00.html

[Dunvegan]

25. I'm posting some of the 11th Circuit decision because it's quite relevant

...to this discussion.

Being as this is a court decision, we should be able to print more than four paragraphs (a consideration of the "fair use" copyright interpretation.) Mods, let me know if this is correct or not.

11th Circuit Invokes _Bowers v. Hardwick_ to Reject Constitutional Challenge to Alabama Law Against Sex Toys


Any doubt that _Bowers v. Hardwick_, 478 U.S. 186 (1986), would continue to wreak havoc in the 21st century was dispelled in a new decision by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit, _Williams v. Pryor_, 2000 WL 1513756 (Oct. 12). The court rejected a facial challenge to Alabama's statutory ban on the sale of devices that facilitate genital stimulation, because such devices could be used for constitutionally unprotected sexual pleasure by "homosexuals." The court reversed -- except as applied to four ostensibly heterosexual women -- District Judge C. Lynwood Smith, Jr.'s decision striking down the statute on its face as not rationally related to a legitimate government interest. In an opinion by Circuit Judge Black, the court interpreted _Bowers_ as permitting states to criminalize not only "homosexual sodomy" (the issue according to the Supreme Court's opinion in _Bowers_), but any activity, including masturbation, that might give gay men or lesbians sexual pleasure. In sharp contrast to this expansive reading of _Bowers_, the court dismissed _Romer v. Evans_, 517 U.S. 620 (1996), as having "no bearing" on the issue before it.


Two years ago, Alabama's legislature made it a crime to distribute for profit "any device designed or marketed as useful primarily for stimulation of human genital organs." A first offense is punishable by a fine and up to a year in prison or -- no kidding -- hard labor. Vendors of sexual devices and four women who use such devices joined together to challenge the statute. Plaintiffs alleged that the statute bore no rational relationship to a legitimate government interest and that it infringed -- both facially and as applied -- a fundamental constitutional right to sexual privacy.


Disposing of the first claim meant identifying a legitimate interest and finding a rational connection between the statute and that interest. Judge Black made short work of the first task, finding a legitimate state interest in the "safeguarding of public morality." (Specifically, the state had claimed the statute would discourage "autonomous sex.") The district court had relied on _Romer v. Evans_ in finding the state's goal illegitimate. But in the appeals court's view, _Romer_ dealt only with the unconstitutionality of "imposing an inability to obtain the protection of antidiscrimination laws." This, according to the court, had "no bearing" on the case before it.


The court then -- in perhaps the weakest part of its opinion -- disposed of claims that the statute, because it ignored the health-related uses of genital-stimulating devices (which, the court conceded, are prescribed in sexual and relationship counseling), is not rationally related to the public-morality purpose. It also rejected the district court's finding that the government's interest in reducing "sexual-stimulation . . . unrelated to marriage, procreation or familial relationships" is not rationally served by a statute that also affects possibilities for genital stimulation within marriage. According to Judge Black, "The criminal proscription on the distribution of sexual devices certainly is a rational means for eliminating commerce in the devices, which itself is a rational means for making the acquisition and use of the devices more difficult." Thus, the court explained (both tautologicallly and redundantly), "the statute is not constitutionally irrational under rational basis scrutiny because it is rationally related to the State's legitimate power to protect its view of public morality." (Protecting its view of public morality is about the only thing the court accomplished!) In other words, the state's assertion that "autonomous sex" is immoral can justify any law expected to decrease the frequency (or perhaps the effectiveness) of such behavior.


Black then turned to a separate claim that the statute infringed a fundamental right to sexual privacy (both facially and as applied). The court characterized a series of Supreme Court right-to-privacy decisions, including _Griswold_, _Casey_, and _Roe v. Wade_, as dealing with the right to make decisions about procreation, not sexual conduct. "Extending the constitutional right to privacy to include a broad fundamental right to all sexual autonomy," wrote Black, "is directly precluded by <_Bowers v. Hardwick_>." In other words, "In light of _Bowers_, there would be no violation of any fundamental constitutional right to the extent application of Alabama's statute infringed upon the sexual activity of homosexuals." (By referring to "the sexual activity of homosexuals," rather than "homosexual activity" or "homosexual sodomy," the court apparently meant to include the aforementioned "autonomous sex." That phrase, incidentally, has no apparent precedent in American case law.) In an ironic footnote, the court conceded that 15 years ago it had recognized exactly such a right, in _Hardwick v. Bowers_ (as the case was called at the circuit court level), only to be slapped down by the Supreme Court. (However, in a construction used selectively to distance itself from past holdings it now regrets, the court attributed its earlier decision not to "this court" but to "a panel of this Court.")


Finally, the court turned to the as applied challenge, where it offered heterosexual genital stimulators some hope. The court made reference to the presumed sexual orientation of the four individual plaintiffs, noting that "Betty Faye Haggermaker and Alice Jean Cope are married women who use sexual devices with their husbands. Sherry Taylor-Williams and Jane Doe began using sexual devices in marital intimacy but both are now single." In the court's view, "the as-applied challenge raised by the plaintiffs, married or unmarried, implicate interests in sexual privacy different from those rejected in _Bowers_." (Could the court somehow believe that masturbation is gay when performed by some people, and straight when performed by others?) In any event, the court noted that application of the law to the four female users had been insufficiently explored below (the case was "tried" on the basis of stipulated facts).


It remanded to the district court for further consideration of whether the women had a fundamental right to use sexual devices. The upshot: To buy sexual devices in Alabama, women may now have to prove their heterosexuality, perhaps by marrying the ex-husbands of Doe or Taylor-Williams. Even that possibility, however, could be foreclosed: To find in the women's favor, the district court will have to determine the right in question to be "objectively, deeply rooted in this Nation's history and tradition." What evidence would convince the court that the right to use dildos and vibrators is deeply rooted it didn't say, but there should be no shortage of experts willing to testify on the point. _Fred A. Bernstein_

[Erika]

28. So this is an anti lesbian bill?

What a joke.

[noamnety]

32. Yep, that's it. The breakdown:

Women were repressed
Women experienced free love in the 60's
Men were getting some
Women not only openly had sex, they talked about it
To each other
They realized that whole orgasm thing - wasn't really happening
And they realized men were still treating them like dirt
The only difference was that they were being called prudes now if they weren't willing to be pressured into having sex
They found other options
Those options didn't always include the men

(Then a whole buncha stuff happened that involved fragile egos)

[PublicWrath]

31. Thanks, I wasn't sure I was allowed to post large sections and I don't

know how to highlight, either. It's definitely information that needs to be shared!!

[PassingFair]

66. OK, is THIS part for real?

"the right to use dildos and vibrators is deeply rooted"


:rofl:

[Union Thug]

24. Need more residents for their privatized prisons I suppose..

[Tandalayo_Scheisskopf]

26. Because the thought that...

Somewhere, someone might be enjoying the use of their genitalia is something that keeps them awake at night.

[Dunvegan]

29. The Alabama 11th Circuit Court says it's ALL about homosexuality.

According to their decision: "It remanded to the district court for further consideration of whether the women had a fundamental right to use sexual devices. The upshot: To buy sexual devices in Alabama, women may now have to prove their heterosexuality...."

This is because the court said, "In light of _Bowers_, there would be no violation of any fundamental constitutional right to the extent application of Alabama's statute infringed upon the sexual activity of homosexuals."

Yes...this felony sex-toy law looks like the conservative court using a sledgehammer to hammer home the illegality of any sexuality between same-sex partners...and the court seemed "surprised" at the thought that married hetrosexual women would have "mounted" a protest.

Amazing.

[Name removed]

33. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[PublicWrath]

34. no fundamental constitutional right to have lesbian sex....

And there you have it!

[Erika]

36. The U.S. Constitution neither addressed women's rights nor

slave rights. The Constitution only was concerned with white male land owner rights.

I hope before I die, that the Constitution will also address women's rights.

[PublicWrath]

40. It may very well address women's rights, and soon, --to officially negate

them, the way things are going. The dominionists and reconstructionists mean business. Things will be very bad indeed, if we don't get a dem Congress in Nov. and a dem president in '08.

[Dunvegan]

37. I suppose a sex toy used in a state where homosexuality is outlawed...

...would be a "crime accessory" as it "could" be used for "sodomy."

This then is like the laws criminalizing smoke shop accessories that "could" be used to smoke illegal substances.

I'd say "this sucks"...but I bet that's outlawed, also.

[Erika]

38. Yeh, in the South stay with the puritans

Yeh, oral and anal sex is definitely not welcomed. I guess it's the missionary position only for pro-creation with a marriage license.

I'm sure W is close to creating an office on allowable sex as condoned by the far right wing zealots.

Theocracy of the religious right on the move.

[Clark2008]

53. As a Southerner, I can say your characterization of ALL

of us is patently untrue.

Please stop the bashing.

[Dunvegan]

39. Shouldn't these states outlaw Viagra? It could be used by

...homosexual men in breaking the anti-sodomy laws?

If a sex-toy is an accessory to breaking the anti-sodomy laws, why isn't Viagra also outlawed?

*Just pointing out the hypocrisy...not advocating any of their meddling inhumane intolerant madness.*

[madrchsod]

42. oh the tales i could tell about insurance companies

and the federal government and their funding of the man`s right of pleasure...i really wouldn`t want to offend you by blunt speech!

[PublicWrath]

43. O, please tell! I'd love to hear about these men and their

filthy pleasures!:smoke:

Seriously though, I would like to hear about insurance and federal funding of male sexual pursuits. Do you mean Viagra? Or is it something rather more lurid?

[Dunvegan]

47. Are you referencing Federal research grants regarding male sexuality?

Or, do you mean insurance companies joining with pharmaceutical companies to fund male erectile issues over other more life-threatening (male and female) concerns?

Just wondering.

[madrchsod]

41. my god people have been using sex toys

for thousands of years and these dumb assed republicans think they can stop it? let`s pass a law to ban these guys from ever breeding again and that would make more sense

[dusmcj]

44. cause they want us all to be tightassed dorks like they are. nt

[NVMojo]

45. They are running out of fundie ass issues so they war on women,

the same women they limp dicks are incapable of pleasing. Imagine, being jealous of a dildo! HAHAHAHAHA!

[leftofthedial]

46. the men are jealous of their wive's plastic and rubber lovers

women are not allowed to be responsible for their own satisfaction

besides, sex is dirty and masturbation is part of the homesexual agenda

[freethought]

63. BINGO! Agree totally!

I tend to think that Mr. Davenport, who fancies himself a conservative "man's man", likely found one of these "toys" in and amongst his wife's things.
For someone of a certain mindset, finding a sex toy in your wife's or girlfriend's posession is about equivalent to being castrated or transformed into a enuch. And I don't mean that to be humorous either. I am actually quite serious. THere will always be a group of men who believe they are god's gift to women, in and out of the bedroom.
I can just imagine Mr. Davenport confronting Mrs. Davenport. "What is the meaning of this!!??", he would ask. She would reply "Take a guess! You are lousy in bed!"

[w8liftinglady]

74. they don't want their wives finding out they're crappy lovers

"ohhhh-THAT'S an orgasm"

[mntleo2]

48. Making Unwanted Babies Is Godly

...while masturbation, even though it doesn't hurt anybody, is a sin. Doncha know ANYTHING????

Cat In Seattle

[NMMNG]

49. Don't you remember, sexual acts purely for pleasure are evil

And sex toys are used primarily for masturbation, which is purely for pleasure. That makes it an evil act second only to homosexuality (which is the most evil act in the world, cuz the Bible says so). Only sex acts that are done for procreation are wholesome. Sex for procreation does not involve a sex toy, and therefore they should be outlawed.

[radfringe]

51. it's their creed

to deregulate the BOARDroom and regulate the BEDroom

[TorchTheWitch]

52. All Hail the Mighty Penis (real ones that is)

Simple... woman are only allowed to enjoy sex if a real penis attached to a real man is involved. The vast majority of sex toys are made with a woman's pleasure in mind. Right wing men can't stand the idea of their penis being replaced or the idea that their own selves aren't good enough to be totally satisfying in the bedroom. They also can't stand the idea that a woman's sexual satisfaction is even necessary since they tend to believe that sex is for THEIR pleasure... sex toys underscore the idea that a woman's pleasure is important, and frankly, they just don't like the idea of people believing that (especially women).

[ladjf]

54. I believe that the RW is pushing the ban on sex toys to show

everyone else that they are in control of the laws. They can even take away such personal items as sex toys. It's designed to intimidate everyone else.

A man was recently sentenced to 20 yrs in prison for downloading cartoons depicting sex acts with children. How can the court know the age of the children in the cartoon?

[mongo]

57. why to close down all the sex shops of course

(cross-posted in the other thread)

Most states have laws against "pandering obscenity", but getting a conviction is a hard and expensive process and the parameters are well spelled out.

In order to find a book, magazine or movie obscene, the prosecution must prove to a jury that:

-- the work appeals to a "purient" interest in sex
-- The work is utterly lacking in redeaming social, litterary, artistic, educational or scientific value.
-- The work is against "community values".

First of all, that means you have to show the jury the entire film. You have to bring in expert witness to testify that the work appeals to an unhealthy interest in sex.

The defense is going to challenge that notion, with expert witness of it's own. It may show similar movies that were found not to be "obscene" by another jury in the same state. (bring your popcorn).

The defense is going to challenge the idea of "community values", when you can pay-per-view a similar movie on a cable system given a franchise by local government, or when any citizen in the community can get on-line and see the same movie.

It's hard to find 12 people who will decide that a movie is sooo bad that no one has any right to see it.

Now sex toys -- all they have to prove is "is this device meant to stimulate sexual organs". Juries are instructed to follow the law, regardless of their conscience -- with threats of contempt of court if they do not comply. Much easier to get a conviction.

[Dunvegan]

58. Well, Alabamaians, what do you do about this? Cross the border...

...or buy your sex toys on when on vacation?

We've a lovely assortment of boutiques (like Good Vibrations) in San Francisco.

Citysearch Editorial Profile -- By Nina Weiss

Legendary, woman-owned shop in the Mission offers adult toys, sexual health workshops and more in a "sex-positive" atmosphere.

Behind clouded glass doors, shoppers are greeted by a giant poster with the store's mission statement and brief history. Beyond the sign lies a wide-open clean and tasteful space, which holds sex toys, erotic books and videos, bondage and fetish gear and safer sex supplies. Categorical signs mark each section, making these products easy to find. The shop's knowledgeable staff and goal of promoting sexual health and pleasure has gained it both credibility and status on a national scale.

I hearby, on behalf of all San Franciscians, invite everyone here to buy quality sex toys in a wholesome atmosphere!

Except Bill O'sama O'Reilly, of course. He's uninvited and has been properly swatted by our Board of Supervisors already for calling for terrorists to bomb Coit Tower (which is darned phallic, which may be his problem with the edifice.)


Blue Angels Flyover of Coit Tower
San Francisco's Annual Fleet Week Celebration.

[Rocknrule]

60. Because anything fun or pleasurable is EVIL!!!

:eyes:

[Stinky The Clown]

62. This is a perfect example of 'Political Masturbation"

It means little, makes the participant feel good, but doesn't last.

[howmad1]

67. Ralphi Davenport probably went shopping for a vibrator......

....found it was out of stock, got pissed off that anybody could buy one and now wants exclusiviity for the purchase of sex toys for he and his repiglican friends only. :evilgrin:

[Pushed To The Left]

68. These types of wedge issues are a good way to get working class religious

fundamentalists to vote against their own economic self-interests. Do you remember how the right wing reacted to the 2003 Supreme Court case that overturned "sodomy laws" that imprisoned adults for their personal consensual sexual behavior? Even the mainstream right-wing talking heads were outraged. With that mentality, it's no surprise that the right wing would want to ban sex toys.

[jerry611]

70. They want to control a woman's sexuality

It's that simple. They have been trying to do it for decades.

[depakid]

71. Trying to understand why fundies do ANYTHING

from a logical perspective is pretty much a hopeless endeavor. We're not talking about rational human beings here.

[nolabels]

73. Many use religion as an excuse for why they don't need to think.

I have a fundie friend who listens to them the hoards of slobbering charlatans do thier pontifications all day long. He has a sharp mind and can differentiate quite well. I only have conversations about sports which he knows well. Some of the tools for critical thinking he has but other's he is missing. I relate this to the fact that it is tough going having to believe others would lie to get their way. Nothing is hopeless, but putting your hope is in the wrong place could even be worse.

[depakid]

76. having to believe others would lie

Bingo. My sister is like that- and no matter how much evidence you place before her about something- say, states' rights and all of the Republican efforts to preempt state laws- it just doesn't register, She chooses to hold demonstrably false beliefs.

Psychologists have names for the phenomena like that: "hypothesis protection" and "confirmation bias." Even so, it's just not logical- and indicates to me that there's some type of pathology going on.

[nolabels]

77. Mental dysfunction ( or illness) is real no doubt

As person that has been diagnosed with schizophrenia in the past I have a little bit of understanding there. A good analogy of the situation is a mind is like garden that needs to be tended. If you let the big bad ugly weeds grow in it then it gets ugly and worthless. If you nurture and take care of your garden it will be able to grow to be a beautiful thing that will even feed you if needed.

As for having dysfunctional family members that are hard to deal with (which I also have). I learn how to play on their strengths. If you can try to build their confidence in that you would rather try to help them than do anything else, the relationship will become more fruitful. Leave the painful alone for now (if possible) because them being your family, the situation will only be able to heal in the long run

[DearAbby]

72. They named the GOP task force "SNATCH"

then had to turn around and outlaw it!

[sendero]

75. Because the right wing fundies..

... are typically very and deeply screwed up in the head of anything and everything sexual. Look at their stance toward abortion and homosexuality. Jesus hardly mentioned either if at all, but they focus on those issues like a laser beam. That's because they don't give a squat about anything Jesus said, they merely want a platform to enforce their own screwed-up views.

[saltpoint]

78. Is this all these people have to do in the South Carolina legislature?

We should probably all send them a list of possible hobbies to choose from, to take their minds off this issue.

It's all about prioritizing.

[Mikimouse]

79. Itis because...

All of the repub women already have theirs, and consider them to be part of their estate, so their daughters will have them as well.:shrug:

[noonwitch]

80. Because men fear that a tool can do it better than they can?

That's my guess as to why they are trying to make sex toys illegal. Conservative men fear that strong women don't need them. My grandfather is convinced that someday women will take over the world, kill all the men except for a few they keep in cages to breed with (yeah, I know, but he is 92). I told him he shouldn't be worried, because if he's still around when it happens, we'll keep him alive because of his superior gene pool.