Did you know that in the state of Texas, it is against the laws for women to posse more than five dildos or to sell dildos?
You can own dildos, but you cannot buy it or said the word dildo. Like you can own a car but you can't call your car a car and if you go to a car sales lot, you can't said “I came here to buy a car" instead you can said "I want to test drive an automobile."
Will, that is how it is in Texas. Cannot own more than five dildos, cannot buy dildo unless for educational propose, and cannot buy certain dildos.
Anyways, the Texas courts of appeal reverse the law, and allow the selling of dildo or possession of dildos for other reason than educational purpose.
Will, apparently, this got the right-wingers so upset, that they file for an appeal for the judge to reconsider it. The Attorney general who filed it came that it is all about saving the unborn babies.
You see, if a pregnant women used a dildos during her pregnancy, than the unborn baby would be so traumatized by it that, it might accidentally abort itself or that the dildo can be so large that when the pregnant women used it, it will abort the unborn child within in her prematurely or that pregnant women can used a dildo as an abortion device to rid her of the unborn child.
The social right-winger claim that banning dildos had nothing to do with controlling a woman sexuality or homosexual but it is really about saving the unborn babies.
What if a teenage girl saw her mother using dildos and become so traumatized by it that she got out, whore herself around and start using abortion as a birth control because of a dildo?
What if a teenage boy see his mother using a dildo and than goes around, whore himself, and impregnate girls, refuse to married them his many pregnant girlfriends thus causing them to all had abortion because he was traumatized by a dildo.
However, no, you must read the Texas attorney general owns argument for the court to reconsider why banning dildos is necessary:
"Criminal’s laws is based on society's social judgment about right or wrong"
http://www.slate.com/id/2185623/entry/2185629/
You see, a woman using a dildo in the privacy of her own home is socially and morally wrong because it contribute to abortion and cause the social decay of society by making it feel so good that the women would no longer engage in reproductive sex with a man thus creating a loss of respect in the sanctity of life by a woman failure to had many children.
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
That attorney general needs an anatomy lesson. The only way a dildo would be able to reach a fetus is if the woman was using it in labor. The cervix would have to be dilated, otherwise, it blocks access to the uterus. Yes, it could be penetrated un-dilated, but only with great force and much pain. If the cervix were penetrated while in labor, the child would most likely survive the experience, as it would be full term. I mean, really, what's more traumatizing? A little blue bubble of silicone poking up at you, or a bloody, suffocating trip through the birth canal?
http://www.progressiveu.org/blog/ediblewoman
This "can own for X purpose" but cannot buy or sell is altogether common in the law.
Such is the case for paraphanalia such as pot bongs and the like (can own for pupose of tabacoo" but cannot buy sell or even posses without liceanse.
Also pornography.
Wow that is totally surprising! Actually, its kinda not because you would really be surprised at the amount of crazy laws that exist in primarily conservative states. Also, I know that according to doctors, it is ok for a woman to have sex while pregnant, so why would a dildo be dangerous? Unless it was extremely huge, in which case we have a whole other issue, lol. I don't know. Interesting blog though...
"but bein' alive and bein' a woman and bein' colored is a metaphysical dilemna I haven't conquered yet."
-Lady in Yellow
Sex toys along with pornography in general has always been regulatable by the states. Some waky conservative group may claim that didlo's hurt fetuses but thats not the reason they are illigal.
They are illegal because they can be considered "obscene" by community standards: Just like strip-joints or live sex shows or what-not.
One of the reasons some of these laws do not change is because nobody worries about them. They're not enforced. I'm sure that there's not a Dildo Inspector out there rushing from house to house in search of penis-shaped plastic.
Find out everything you need to know about poop here:
http://progressiveu.org/000701-everything-you-need-know-about-poop
When I was in Austin a few years back, before the law was changed, I went into a gay bookstore where they sold, um, special rings for the purpose of increasing an erection (don't want to use the colloquial term at this hour of day--that seems like an after five o'clock word). They had to call them "napkin rings" because they had gotten a ticket for selling them in the past. They even had a display with a napkin in one. I thought it was a very creative way around the law. It was pretty much all they could get away with selling, though.
http://www.progressiveu.org/blog/ediblewoman
That's funny. We have some ways of getting around things like that here. Brass knuckles are sold as belt buckles, and all of them can actually function as one. I doubt anyone would actually wear them, because it looks really ridiculous. Then there's the "tobacco" pipes- I once saw a sign at a counter that warned "There is no "B" in Water Pipe" warning customers not to call it by its functional name. There's also glass flowers- they're tiny fake flowers housed inside a small glass tube that functions as a crack pipe. I could do without that one. Sadly, the glass flowers are very widely available here, since our state seems to like that kind of thing. Vibrators are sold as "personal massagers" here in more common stores, but the sex stores just call them vibrators.
Click here to read about new ways to save money and the environment that you have never heard!