Evolution, development, and random biological ejaculations from a godless liberal
PZ Myers is a biologist and associate professor at the University of Minnesota, Morris.
…and this is a pharyngula stage embryo.
• a longer profile of yours truly
• my calendar
• Nature Network
• RichardDawkins Network
• facebook
• MySpace
• Twitter
• Atheist Nexus
• the Pharyngula chat room
(#pharyngula on irc.synirc.net)
My aim is to argue that the universe can come into existence without intervention, and that there is no need to invoke the idea of a Supreme Being in one of its numerous manifestations.
[Peter William Atkins, preface to The Creation]
Deep homologies in the pharyngeal arches
My heart-warming tale of self-affirmation
Stay abreast of your favorite bloggers' latest and greatest via e-mail, via a daily digest.
« It's not just the Muslims | Main | Prophecy! »
Category: Weirdness
Posted on: February 14, 2008 10:26 AM, by PZ Myers
And it's a good thing! The Texas ban on sale of sex toys has been ruled unconstitutional. There will be a lot of people smiling in that state in days to come — I'd like to think that flooding the state with vibrators would have a salutary effect on the repressive prigs who are also responsible for the promotion of creationism.
So, Texans, you know it's Valentine's Day … does this give you any gift ideas?
(TrackBack URL for this entry: )
YES! Send me a free issue of Seed.
If I like what I see, I'll receive 5 more issues (6 in all) for just $19.95. If I'm not completely satisfied, I'll simply write "cancel" on the invoice and owe nothing. The free issue is mine to keep.
(Non-U.S. subscribers, click here.)
Comments
Rabbits for every man, woman, and child!
Posted by: zer0 | February 14, 2008 10:27 AM
Oh, yeah, Texas is awesome. You know those pro-life and "God" billboards everyone likes so much? There are three of them to almost every street here.
Posted by: October Mermaid | February 14, 2008 10:28 AM
You could buy all manner of dildoes and vibrators in Texas before, they just had to be sold for as "novelty items." Although, living in Austin, it's hard to say whether that was the case everywherei in this big state. Still, a victory for reality.
Posted by: Ed | February 14, 2008 10:32 AM
From the article:
Sex is sinful if it's not for making new li'l Christian soldiers!
Posted by: Blake Stacey | February 14, 2008 10:33 AM
I'm sure lots of people are gonna have a celebration today! ;)
Posted by: Michelle | February 14, 2008 10:35 AM
They had to rule this way -- how could Texas function after losing it's biggest dick to DC?
hugs,
Shirley Knott
Posted by: Shirley Knott | February 14, 2008 10:37 AM
"I'm sure lots of people are gonna have a celebration today! ;)"
It'll be as if a thousand li'l Christian Soldiers cried out and then were immediately silenced...
Posted by: October Mermaid | February 14, 2008 10:37 AM
Via Bill in Portland Maine/Cheers and Jeers, at Daily Kos, this fantastic video of Molly Ivins on the Texas sex toy and sodomy laws. Warning!: NOT OFFICE FRIENDLY (but for consenting adults, very "educational" *snark*)
http://abirdandabottle.com/2007/02/03/one-more-tribute-to-the-fabulous-molly-ivins/
Molly's closing lines in the video just cracked me up.
Posted by: Forrest Prince | February 14, 2008 10:51 AM
If Texas had a ban on sex toys, then why were so many of their politicians dildos?
Posted by: Ken Shabby | February 14, 2008 10:52 AM
I guess everything in TX isn't as big as they say.
Posted by: umkomasia | February 14, 2008 10:53 AM
Oh my. What has Texas wrought? Think of the kittens!
Posted by: Genuinely Doug | February 14, 2008 10:55 AM
Yup.
You know, it's easy to bag on Texas (and don't think I don't know they deserve it)... but I see this as just the most obviously stupid instance of an underlying prejudice that permeates our whole culture: the notion that all physical pleasure is morally wrong unless it is redeemed by a "higher purpose." It's my belief that this notion forms the basis for almost all of our laws regulating not only sexuality but other physically pleasurable activities (e.g., drinking and drug use), even though other factors (public health, economics, etc.) would form a more rational basis for law.
I also think this equation of pleasure, per se, with evil is always an expression of religious values. Can anyone think of a secular argument that pleasure for its own sake is a bad thing? I can't.
As for me, I hold with that eminent 20th century moral philosopher Sheryl Crow: If it makes you happy, it can't be that bad!
Posted by: Bill Dauphin | February 14, 2008 10:55 AM
This has the potential of going to the Supreme Court, since the 11th Circuit, in the Alabama case, ruled the other way. Having a split in the Circuits is one of the things the USSC looks at when it decides whether to take a case.
Posted by: Ahcuah | February 14, 2008 10:58 AM
Well, at least there are some who disagree.
Posted by: Jessa | February 14, 2008 11:09 AM
It would be funny if it weren't so sad that the U.S. Supreme Court would have to waste time protecting my right to a prurient interest in autonomous sex. Nope, nobody's religious beliefs being imposed on me here!
Posted by: ildi | February 14, 2008 11:26 AM
I'm a bit surprised that nobody has mentioned the canonical reference yet.
Posted by: bstark | February 14, 2008 11:29 AM
Quimby: Fat Tony, how long will it take you to flood our streets with [dildos]?
Fat Tony: Four minutes.
Posted by: stogoe | February 14, 2008 11:35 AM
I live in Dallas and it's funny when you've lived outside of Texas and move back.
When I lived in Seattle, a very sexually liberal area, they had a small handful of strip joints and you'd find very few ads for escorts in their alt weekly papers. Sex is not a big deal.
When I moved back to conservative, god fearing Texas I found some irony in that in Dallas you have a strip joint on every block, huge provacative billboards along all the freeways advertising them, and the alt papers literally dedicate 50% of the pages to escort and stripper ads. You'd think people in Texas seem to be obsessed with sex.
Posted by: Miles | February 14, 2008 11:39 AM
"There's no place for the state in the bedrooms of the nation." -Pierre Trudeau
Posted by: Eric | February 14, 2008 11:42 AM
Might I humbly suggest a specific product for celebratory purposes?
Jackhammer Jesus - http://www.divine-interventions.com/jackhammer.html
I know they've been selling it for some years now, but I just think it really suits the occasion well.
Posted by: Midwest Product | February 14, 2008 11:45 AM
Oh, come, all ye faithful?
I couldn't resist...
Posted by: Bruce Almighty | February 14, 2008 11:47 AM
In other news, there was a sudden surge in battery sales in Texas today.
Posted by: Jason Spaceman | February 14, 2008 11:54 AM
I was visiting a friend in Dallas a few years ago, and we stopped in a sex shop. Dildos had big stickers that said 'novelty cake topper', and the 'napkin rings' weren't really designed for a formal dinner. ;) So they managed to get around it easily enough, but it's absurd that they had to.
Posted by: Michael Vieths | February 14, 2008 12:10 PM
Obviously you've never read Aristotle.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eudaimonia
Granted, Aristotle never says that pleasure for it's own sake is actively bad. He just argues that the pursuit of pleasure for its own sake is a life fit for barnyard animals, and humans should have higher aspirations than that.
Posted by: G | February 14, 2008 12:15 PM
"I was visiting a friend in Dallas a few years ago, and we stopped in a sex shop. Dildos had big stickers that said 'novelty cake topper', and the 'napkin rings' weren't really designed for a formal dinner. ;) So they managed to get around it easily enough, but it's absurd that they had to."
It is more than just absurd, it bring the law into disrepute. If the law can be circumvented like that that then what is the point of having laws ? It is the same situation with the way psychics get around being charged with fraud by claiming they are offering entertainment not prophecy. If there is an argument for having a law (in the case of sex toys I would argue there is not) then it should be enforced. To allow such a silly way of avoiding falling foul of the law just makes those who make and enforce the laws look like idiots.
Posted by: Matt Penfold | February 14, 2008 12:25 PM
The whole state is buzzing.
Posted by: Dave Mcconnell | February 14, 2008 12:25 PM
"The whole state is buzzing."
That will be all the vibrators it is now legal to buy.
Posted by: Matt Penfold | February 14, 2008 12:34 PM
Thank goodness! That carrot was looking pretty rotten.
Posted by: Christianjb | February 14, 2008 12:45 PM
I'm sorry, I just had to: http://youtube.com/watch?v=UnzgNAzquCw
Posted by: Adnan Ahmad | February 14, 2008 12:45 PM
@G (#23)
There's a big difference between saying that pleasure falls short of being the highest good and saying that it's bad. In my reading of Aristotle, he's pretty clear that pleasure is an end in itself, an intrinsic good.
Posted by: Physicalist | February 14, 2008 12:49 PM
Pretty weird. What is the state of Texas doing regulating why and how often their citizens have sex?
Or claiming to. They hypocracy and idiocy of their politicians is astounding. In the first place they can't regulate this sort of behavior unless 1/2 of the citizens monitor the other half continuously 24/7. In the second place, I don't believe too many of them only have sex for procreational purposes. The myth that one only has sex once for each child is not believable.
Texas is the first US theocracy. Who in the hell voted these morons into power and why?
Posted by: raven | February 14, 2008 1:01 PM
It would have been far better for this showdown to have happened before Roberts and Alito joined the SCOTUS. This is far from the same court that handed down the ruling in the Lawrence case, which was the basis for the Fifth Circuit's ruling here. Unfortunately, I'm not even sure it's the same Justice Kennedy who wrote the sweeping Lawrence decision, which relied on an expansive reading of the 14th Amendment's liberty clause. His decisions of late have been far from the libertarian-leaning rulings of his earlier SCOTUS career.
Posted by: Franklin Harris | February 14, 2008 1:04 PM
And in local news, retailers here in San Antonio are reported an upsurge in battery sales....
Posted by: Todd | February 14, 2008 1:04 PM
Crap.
1. That should be "have reported"
2. Jason Spaceman beat me to the punchline.
Man that stresses me out. But on the plus side, now I can legally do something to releive it.
Posted by: Todd | February 14, 2008 1:08 PM
Here is some background on the situation from the documentary Dildo Diaries.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TYXUUsDGxkU
Fun fact from the clip: Possession of 6 or more dildos was a felony. Fewer than 5 and you were merely a hobbyist.
Posted by: Noturus | February 14, 2008 1:13 PM
In other news, sales of back massagers are predicted to plummet as sales of dildos skyrocket.
Posted by: BruceH | February 14, 2008 1:18 PM
I vaguely remember a drunken jaunt to the sex shop attached to a strip club outside the city limits here in Lubbock. My wife (at the time) and I bought a grab bag of various sex gag gifts and were then presented with a form we had to fill out. In order to buy the sex toys we had to check a box to indicate what we would be using the items for- (to "prove" it wouldn't be for sex" Totally ridiculous.
I can't remember all the "Options" but the one I ended up checking off was for "Law enforcement."
NO SHIT. I thought it was hilarious at the time, but looking back, It kind of scares me.
Posted by: Fade | February 14, 2008 1:25 PM
This is actually a common fight in Texas in general.
It may have been ruled unconstitutional but its the main topic of most city hall meetings.
Every town is trying to locally ban them.
Go figure.
Religious legislation is alive and well in Texas.
Posted by: mindcore | February 14, 2008 1:25 PM
If there is an argument for having a law (in the case of sex toys I would argue there is not) then it should be enforced. To allow such a silly way of avoiding falling foul of the law just makes those who make and enforce the laws look like idiots.
I see your point. But if anyone asks, my glass pipe is for tobacco.
Posted by: ndt | February 14, 2008 1:30 PM
Well, Texas can now just go and fuck itself.
Posted by: Matt M | February 14, 2008 1:42 PM
this seems appropriate for this thread, but as a single person, here's what I'm wearing for VDay...and yes, I'm wearing it while I teach...I was supposed to wear it earlier in the week (for the campus sex fair) but I forgot, so it's getting pulled out for Valentine's Day.
Posted by: MAJeff | February 14, 2008 2:42 PM
#15, I read The Technology of Orgasm a couple of years ago out of boredom and found it an extremely compelling read. I highly recommend it. Central thesis: the vibrator was developed in the 19th century as a cure for hysteria. It didn't occur to physicians in that gynecologically-stunted era that women could experience sexual pleasure without male assistance.
Posted by: False Prophet | February 14, 2008 2:46 PM
Actually, I haven't; I went to school in [wait for it]... Texas! 8^)
I see that Physicalist has beaten me to the response, but theres a difference between saying a life devoted to nothing but pleasure is a bad thing and saying that pleasure itself is a bad thing. (Actually, I'm not sure the former isn't debatable, Aristotle notwithstanding, but in any case they're different points.)
I don't dispute that life should have higher aspirations than pleasure alone, but I do dispute the suggestion that only "higher" aspirations can cleanse pleasure of some inherent stain.
Posted by: Bill Dauphin | February 14, 2008 2:47 PM
You'd think people in Texas seem to be obsessed with sex.
That's a reasonable assumption about the kind of people who thought it was a good idea to ban dildos in the first place.
Posted by: Molly, NYC | February 14, 2008 3:06 PM
reading the link it says that originally if you had 6 or more sex toys youd be seen as 'promoting' them, i thought 3 would have been enough for most women, and 2 for most men.
talking constitutional sexual privacy I know of a young man who during a juvenile probation evaluation (in the US)was asked about his religious beliefs and his sexual orientation, and did he practice safe sex, i told the guy that was unconstitutional and almost certainly illegal, seems those guys have you by the balls though and it sounds to me like the interviewer was perhaps looking for a pair himself.
Assuming this guy wasnt lying to me this is illegal yes?
Posted by: extatyzoma | February 14, 2008 3:17 PM
Your mention of billboards reminds me of my youth in Houston. Back in the day (i.e., late 70s/early 80s), Houston had a very restrictive ordinance regarding sexually oriented businesses, so the strip clubs, peep shows, etc., tended to gravitate to locations along the major highways just outside the city limits. One such cluster along US 59, which I used to drive past on the way to Intercontinental Airport (which was well outside the city limits at the time), was heralded by a veritable forest of huge, high-mounted billboards that could be seen for miles. Most of them used the usual euphemisms to trumpet their wares: "Exotic Dancers," "Adult Entertainment," "Gentlemen's Club," "Novelties,"....
In the midst of all these signs was one that declared, with disarming directness, "Naked Ladies and Dirty Movies." No matter what you think of strippers and smut, you've got to give those folks props for truth in advertising!
Posted by: Bill Dauphin | February 14, 2008 3:22 PM
"just had to be sold for as 'novelty items.'"
Same in Houston
Posted by: Brian W. | February 14, 2008 3:44 PM
I think Texas may be one of the states examined in the documentary "the dildo diaries" that refused to acknowledge the anus/rectum as a sexual organ, so that even though dildos were illegal, butt-plugs and salestalk concerning butt-plugs as sexual devices remained legal.
But maybe Texas wasn't one of those states. Need to look into the documentary again and find the clip...
Posted by: Aerik | February 14, 2008 3:51 PM
Does this mean I can play my 'Steely Dan' albums again?
.
Posted by: Grand Moff Texan | February 14, 2008 4:06 PM
But they did not do that for alabama . they still on the books. nothing like the real thang
Posted by: rawdawgbuffalo | February 14, 2008 4:10 PM
Shmega dildos Texas!
Posted by: Dirk Diggler | February 14, 2008 4:34 PM
I'm currently living in temporary exile in Texas - specifically the Houston area. Yes, sex toys are readily available around here just as in Austin (there are even megastores selling ALL sorts of... uh... interesting devices and videos - at least, that's what I've heard... ::cough, cough::). Yes, they are labeled "for novelty purposes only" - yet some of these things come with instructions that belied that little disclaimer. Silly laws were made mostly to keep gays and women from having fun. The porn isn't banned (purchased mainly by men). Hardcore porn is OK but sex toys (mostly for women) aren't? What utter rubbish.
After all, one of Texas' biggest dildos made it all the way to the White House. They make 'em bigger in Texas!
Posted by: Tara | February 14, 2008 4:35 PM
reading the link it says that originally if you had 6 or more sex toys youd be seen as 'promoting' them, i thought 3 would have been enough for most women, and 2 for most men.
Sez you! This woman has, er, well... I seem to have lost count...
Posted by: the wild dildo rider | February 14, 2008 5:08 PM
Anyone else here want to applaud that judge for choosing Valentine's Day to hand down that decision?
Posted by: Noadi | February 14, 2008 5:12 PM
Yes, there are sex toy shops all over the Houston area. I doubt anyone in Harris County has to drive more than 15 minutes to get to one. And yes, they have plenty to offer, but most is labled "novelty purposes only". That makes it hard to market the serious slabs of silicone. Making a case for their sexual superiority is the only way to justify their price. As a result the cheap stff was just down the street and the good stuff came fro online.
Posted by: Bacopa | February 14, 2008 7:12 PM
"discouraging prurient interests in autonomous sex and the pursuit of sexual gratification unrelated to procreation."? WTF?
My wife had her tubes tied during her previous marriage, so all of our sexual gratification (and I I do find it gratifying) is unrelated to procreation. Does this mean that had we lived in Texas, we wouldn't have legally been able to have sex?
Posted by: Bill Klee | February 14, 2008 7:14 PM
Central thesis: the vibrator was developed in the 19th century as a cure for hysteria.
Yep, and not just as a cure, but because physicians were sick and tired of having to do the job themselves by hand (pun very much intended). It was a medical treatment, it took a lot of time, and it didn't occur to them that the women could take care of it on their own. Hence, the vibrator.
Posted by: Carlie | February 14, 2008 7:20 PM
"After all, one of Texas' biggest dildos made it all the way to the White House. They make 'em bigger in Texas!"
What woman would to have that dildo inside her ?
Come to think of it, maybe that is why Condoleeza Rice is so attached to Bush.
Posted by: Matt Penfold | February 15, 2008 4:11 AM
In the process of listening yesterday to the podcast of Rachel Maddow's Air America show, I learned that W has a nephew (one of Neil's sons, IIRC) named Pierce Bush.
I can't swear that's true, but it wasn't offered as a joke. The mind boggles, eh?
Posted by: Bill Dauphin | February 15, 2008 8:50 AM
Pierce Bush:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cWidr0Uwj8E
(Welcome to the even shallower end of the Bush gene pool.)
Posted by: Tosser | February 15, 2008 1:12 PM