Issues of personal freedom raised by vibrators, marijuana and guns

[caption id="attachment_4340" align="alignleft" width="300" caption="Guns non violence sculpture"][/caption]

NATCHITOCHES, LOUISIANA - Carol Forsloff - It's against the law to either buy or sell a vibrator in Alabama, but folks can buy guns.  In Louisiana people can own both vibrators and guns, but not marijuana. What questions are raised by these differences that seem unique today? 

In Natchitoches,Louisiana small vibrators and medium size ones are on the shelf, nice and sassy right in the drug area of Walgrens.  They are discreetly tucked on one of the shelves near areas where there are medical appliances as well.

These come in all sizes.  They might be for that intimate personal use, but some of these do a good job of taking care of that mean cramp in your leg when you sit on a plane too long. Or they get the back of the neck when cramped on long drives.  As funny
as that may sound to those who use them for sex purposes, there were made for medical use as well, because they support circulation.

It is that promotion of circulation that also helps promote the sexual experience, given the fact that the action creates a rush of heat energy
to the area in question.

Still Alabama, each time the arguments are presented, strikes down these things some folks consider just sex toys or to massage some area hurting.  Even though some are vaguely shaped in that fashion, there are likely exceptions, as seen at the local Natchitoches, Louisiana Walgrens.

It is this restriction or banning that is news right now, in different places about different matters.

In other words, this intimate object is restricted by the state.  A gun can be purchased; a vibrator cannot. In virtually every state in the country marijuana is illegal, although California and Oregon may legalize its use this year.   What is the message in these cases?   Sex should be regulated, even when discreetly practiced, but guns can be had willy nilly?  Should that be the same with pot?

Alabama continues its ban on vibrators. This is to maintain decency in the state, according to proponents. But there’s more to decency than
just vibrators in Alabama. What is decent and what is not is apparently a subjective decision, and according to one writer particularly arbitrary.

In 1964 Lenny Bruce was found guilty of what was determined to be an indecent performance in Café Au Go Go in Greenwich
Village, but he was posthumously pardoned by George Pataki in 2003. The Governor’s magnanimity came, however, as a way to justify the Iraq
invasion when he said, “Freedom of speech is one of the great American liberties, and I hope this pardon serves as a reminder of the precious
freedoms we are fighting to preserve as we continue to wage the war on terrorism.”

That same year Bono, the well-know entertainer and activist, declared enthusiastically in response to receiving an award at the Golden Globes, “This is really, really fucking brilliant.”

Despite the prohibitions on profanity the FCC selectively ruled Bono had not offended decency standards because the word was simply “unfortunate” and
“isolated and nonsexual.” It was explained as being an exclamation as opposed to be referring to something sexual. These are some examples of
how selective media and the FCC, as well as state decency codes, can make rules depending upon the person and the situation, Alternet maintains.

Now in the spirit of finding out what Americans think about decency, a poll was  taken about how comfortable folks might feel just talking about
vibrators and their use. Men were asked to contribute their answers. Perhaps that’s because women are already talking about them, as Barbara Walters and friends did on The View last year.

A Huffington Post writer, Ethan Imboden, wrote about his amazement that the media becomes so undone about trifles such as talk about vibrators, as the incident on The View demonstrated at the time. He writes he was heartened to hear the women talk openly about sex, especially their use of vibrators and wrote:  “We're all here because someone somewhere had sex. Allow me to provide a reassuring report from the front lines of the booming Sexual Wellbeing
market - you aren't alone. Everybody does it differently, but trust me,everybody's "doing it."

What happens if you take a vibrator over state lines?  Are states rights predominant on matters of sexual freedom or repression?

Presently people are arguing over where to build a mosque, whether one should be able to carry a gun secretly somewhere, and whether or not same-sex
marriage should be legal.  All of these questions have been bound with states rights.

Alabama imposes its rules on its people, with legislators given the right to set those rules for the citizens they represent.  But do people who go to Alabama from somewhere else have to dispose of a vibrator?

Furthermore Oregon and California are about to vote on laws allowing citizens a small amount ofmarijuana for personal use.

As silly as it sounds to some, it is the heart of state's rights and the question of personal freedom.

In Natchitoches, Louisiana citizens can own vibrators and guns.  Folks who live there say that is consistent.  In Oregon and California tight
registration is placed upon guns.

Personal freedom, what is at the heart of the debate in these places.  The issue that folks wonder, however, is what happens when crossing the borders from one place to another, how are people treated with regard to these freedoms and what impact does it have on the nature of freedom itself.