Sandy Springs, Georgia Gets All Up In People's Sex Toys
Elizabeth Nolan Brown writes at Reason about a ban on the sale of sex toys in a Georgia city to anyone without a "medical, scientific, educational, legislative, or law enforcement" purpose.
(I'm pretty sure playing cop and speeder without any panties on doesn't count.)
A Georgia woman, Melissa Davenport, has filed suit against the city:
In effect, Sandy Springs residents are required to have a doctor's prescription or otherwise prove they only intend to use that vibrator for state-sanctioned reasons."(Some people) have this dirty mind about how people are going to use it," plaintiff Melissa Davenport told Atlanta's WSB-TV 2. "People really do need devices because they need it for health reasons and to have a healthy intimate life with their spouse."
Davenport, 44, has multiple sclerosis, which interfered with her ability to enjoy sex. She credits the introduction of sex toys with "saving" her marriage of 24 years. Not that it should make a damn bit of difference why anyone wants to buy a sex toy or how they intend to use it.
Ostensibly Sandy Springs residents can turn to online sex toy retailers with little problem. But in ordering Internet dildos, they would still officially be breaking the law. I'm glad Davenport--a spokeswoman for sexual health in the MS community who seeks not just to purchase but also to sell sex toys in Sandy Springs--is challenging the ordinance as a violation of her 14th Amendment rights to privacy and liberty.








It's a stupid law, but all of the coverage of this appears to be wildly inaccurate.
The law can be found here:
www.sandyspringsga.org/getmedia/10a8b1c9-a23f-46de-9f4f-3892d77bded2/ORDINANCE-NO--2009-04-24---Amending-Section-38-119-and-Section-38-120;;.aspx;.html
It is part of an ordinance to keep adult bookstores out of Sandy Springs, which I gather is trying to be an upscale suburb of Atlanta.
It prevents distribution of sex toys within town. It doesn't prevent purchase or ownership of sex toys.
It doesn't require a prescription to purchase a sex toy.
It doesn't EVEN prevent sell of a sex toy OVER THE COUNTER at say a pharmacy or Walmart or CVS.
(d) It is an affirmative defense under this section that selling, renting, or leasing the material was done for a bona fide medical, scientific, educational, legislative, judicial, or law enforcement purpose.
So you can't sell a sex toy for "toy" use, but you can sell it without a Rx for medical needs, or educational needs. In Alabama, where sex toys are illegal to sell and own, sex shops sell sex toys as "novelties", or ask you to fill out an anonymous questionnaire asking if you or a partner needs one.
Distribution of sex toys is a misdemeanor on the first offense with a maximum penalty of a $10,000 fine and one year in jail, although the law doesn't ban possession.
But the law has a loophole that allows for the sale of sex toys that are needed for unspecified "medical, scientific, educational, legislative, judicial, or law enforcement" purposes, and Williams jumped through it. Customers buying toys - items that can be used for sexual stimulation - fill out an anonymous form with 10 questions including whether they or a partner have difficulty with sexual fulfillment.
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/alabama-sex-toy-drive-thru-business-on-the-rise/
And if you use google maps, it turns out that within a TWO mile drive of Sandy Springs, GA, there is at least one sex shop, called appropriately enough, "The Love Shack".
So...
It's a stupid law.
It's on a par with laws that keep big box stores out of town, walmarts out of town, or fast food restaurants out of town.
It doesn't prohibit purchase or ownership of sex toys.
It apparently doesn't even do a good job of prohibiting selling of sex toys IN town.
And in under a 7 minute drive, there are dildos a plenty for purchase.
You just have to be willing to head through the zombie afflicted portions of Atlanta.
The media just seems to love to get things wrong. Almost as if it were their job to get things wrong.
jerry at May 20, 2014 11:07 PM
Jessica Valenti read the same articles everyone else was reading, and decided this was about Patriarchy Oppressing Women even though the ordinance is quite gender neutral and oppresses men who buy sex toys too.
What saddens me is how few journalists and their editors bothered to look up the ordinance and see that it's clearly not what they are claiming it is.
jerry at May 20, 2014 11:12 PM
There is no room for the state in the bedrooms of the nation.
Jay at May 21, 2014 5:29 AM
Well, that's just not good enough jerry. Since when did you have to fill out a questionnaire to buy groceries (or for that matter, condoms)? I don't care if the law has a hole big enough to drive a truck through, it's still wrong.
(d) It is an affirmative defense under this section that selling, renting, or leasing the material was done for a bona fide medical, scientific, educational, legislative, judicial, or law enforcement purpose.
Great. It's a defence. Until some busybody questions it and you have to defend it. See the reversal of the burden of proof?
Ltw at May 21, 2014 5:35 AM
I think Jerry summed it up appropriately with "It's a stupid law". It creates bad publicity (as we are seeing), it appears to offer no public benefit, and it creates a lane for selective enforcement and politically-motivated prosecution.
Cousin Dave at May 21, 2014 6:35 AM
It is one more straw on top of all of the other little laws that add up to the haystack of rules and regulations that we are all buried under.
As Cousin Dave said, it will effectively allow someone in power to selectively prosecute someone they don't like, someday. Other than that, it effectively does nothing.
flbeachmom at May 21, 2014 7:36 AM
This is pretty widespread in the South. When I was growing up in Atlanta, the police would occasionally raid sex shops and seize a bunch of dildos. And in Texas, I believe, you are limited in the number you can purchase except for educational purpose or something. It's ridiculous.
Mike at May 21, 2014 7:43 AM
Well, that's just not good enough jerry. Since when did you have to fill out a questionnaire to buy groceries (or for that matter, condoms)?
Exactly.
Amy Alkon at May 21, 2014 7:49 AM
In Virginia, it is illegal to sell raw milk. Instead, people have... cow shares! Like a time share of property, you have a share of the cow. I'm not sure if you get the cow one day a week, or you just get a portion ownership (like, 10% ownership). Either way, once you own the cow, what the cow produces is also yours.
Stupid laws.
Shannon Howell at May 21, 2014 8:29 AM
I haven't defended this law one iota.
I have said that it's reported wildly inaccurately.
The difference between outrage and poutrage is getting the facts straight.
jerry at May 21, 2014 9:04 AM
I think you're mistaken in not understanding this law IS effective where it applies.
That's not a defense of the law.
The law does not effectively keep dildos and fleshjacks out of the hands of Sandy Springs residents.
The law does effectively keep adult bookstores off their main drag, placing them two miles back in Atlanta.
It's a zoning law.
If you're going to bitch about it, bitch about zoning laws.
And apparently cops can purchase them to beat and rape their suspects just fine. So you know, Georgia.
jerry at May 21, 2014 9:14 AM
Same thing in Missouri, except you can't rent that cow if you're within a mile of a sex shop.
jerry at May 21, 2014 9:15 AM
Man the south is just a shit place.
West coast Yankee at May 21, 2014 10:29 PM
Leave a comment