Georgia Woman Sues Over City Sex Toy Ban

smussyolay/Flickrsmussyolay/FlickrA Georgia woman has filed a lawsuit against the city of Sandy Springs over an ordinance banning the sale of sex toys to anyone without a "medical, scientific, educational, legislative, or law enforcement" purpose. 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. 

The other plaintiff in the lawsuit is a man named Henry, described in court documents as "a bisexual man and artist." Henry has previously used sex toys in art exhibits in Sandy Springs and would like to in the future, the lawsuit says. He would also like to be able to sell artwork containing these banned sexual devices and purchase sex toys, for artistic and personal purposes, in the city. Henry alleges that the ordinance violates his First Amendment rights, as well. 

The city is expected to file a response in June.  

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  • sarcasmic||

    Are those things made out of glass? What could possibly go wrong...

  • AlmightyJB||

    Solid glass. So unless your gal (or guy) has internal metal parts or isn't warty you should be ok.

  • Hugh Akston||

    Handmade glass of that thickness is actually pretty robust. You'd have to do some Warty-level kegels to able to break it in flagrante delicto

  • Zeb||

    If it's borosilicate glass, then you'd probably have to hit one with a hammer to break it.

  • ||

    I wonder what the Doomcock is made out of. Adamantium?

  • Edwin||

    I want the girl who can do that

    she could squeeze me at just the right moments when we're fight-fucking vigorously. HOO YAH

  • VicRattlehead||

    TIWTANFL

  • SusanM||

    Glass toys are very sturdy. Also they're easier to lubricate and santize.

  • Jordan||

    Go on...

  • Virginian||

    Plus you can heat or chill them.

  • Mr Whipple||

    Also they're easier to lubricate and santize

    Soooooo. That's how I got chlamydia.

  • SusanM||

    Apart from sounding, how could you get chlamydia from a toy?

  • Mr Whipple||

    IDK. I was just wondering if the wife would buy it.

  • croaker||

    It's a Pyrex analogue, not going to break even under "abnormal" sexual activities.

  • some guy||

    It's too bad politicians can't suffer criminal penalties for introducing, enacting or enforcing laws that are unconstitutional. That might help things a bit.

  • VicRattlehead||

    they can i thinks its section 218 title 15 of the US Code
    Conspiring or denying constitutionally guaranteed rights to a citizen is punishable for no less than 10 year for each account with a maximum penalty of death if convicted of more than 5 accounts

  • Fist of Etiquette||

    Or, alternately, you could explain that unless the state can prove a valid reason to interfere, this commerce must be allowed unmolested.

  • Zeb||

    What I'd like to know is what law enforcement purposes there are for sex toys.

  • Certified Public Asskicker||

    Batons?

  • ||

    Entrapping prostitutes with the use of unprescribed sex toys!

  • SusanM||

    Dildo Abuse Resistance Education

  • Mokers||

    What I'd like to know is what law enforcement purposes there are for sex toys.

    Maybe they didn't know law enforcement is always exempt from the law.

  • IceTrey||

    Obviously to sodomize prisoners. What, you want them to use a plunger handle?

  • VicRattlehead||

    ever heard of the 14th amendment? no they arent, ever period no matter what some dick in a black robe claims
    the 14th is very clear about ALL PERSONS ARE EQUAL UNDER THE RULE OF LAW.
    qualified immunity is an affront to the constitution and the judge who decided on that should have been tarred and feathered then lit on fire and run out of the country

  • ||

    What I'd like to know is what law enforcement purposes there are for sex toys.

    I had the same thought about legislative reasons as well, then I realized that if they showed you, their reason for purchasing/owning one becomes educational.

  • TANSTaaFL||

    To give the LEO's something other than a 1" flaccid cocktail wiener to screw the hookers (and citizens) with.

  • croaker||

    One inch? You're being generous.

  • TANSTaaFL||

    True, but in fairness, by scientific standards one is supposed to round up at .5

  • Big Chief||

    Clearly the Sandy Springs city council is a bunch of dildos.

  • BuSab Agent||

    And they hate the competition.

  • VicRattlehead||

    "Don't fuck yourself, the government hates competition"
    a slogan for Rand Pauls desk

  • John||

    We have ended up where the right to "privacy" means the right to an abortion but does not mean you have a right to buy a sex toy. Yeah, that makes sense.

    This is a totally out of left field view of "privacy" and government but this is how I feel. The government's power to regulate anything should only extend to things that go on in the commons or in public view. This in my opinion would not include the internet or the mail. If Sandy Springs wants to say that you can't open a sex shop for walk in customers, well that is their prerogative because they have the power to govern things that are done that involve the commons. If someone want to sell sex toys out of their home through the mail, then the government has no authority or business regulating it. What goes on in someone's home or what is in their mail is the definition of "private". And the government, therefore has no authority over it. I would extend that rule to everything. I don't care if it is a rifle, a dildo or heroin, if you use it in your house and it comes in your mail, it is none of the government's God damned business.

  • IceTrey||

    The government's authority should only extend to the retaliatory use of force. Anything they do beyond that, including prohibiting sex shops, is pure tyranny.

  • John||

    I differ with Libertarians on zoning laws. I don't think zoning laws are tyranny, provided the law relates to some kind of activity that effects other property owners.

    If you turn your house into a used car lot, that is going to affect me as your neighbor. I am okay with the government telling all of us we can't do that.

    Regardless, that is an issue of property rights not privacy. This is not about your property rights. This is about your privacy to do anything you want in your own home as long as it doesn't affect someone else. Privacy to me, if it means anything, means that what people do in their homes is totally outside the scope of government regulation. It only enters the sphere of government regulations when it somehow affects another person.

    So if I murder someone in my home, because that effects someone else, the government can come and arrest me. If I am some deviant who jerks off to watching films of people being murdered, as long as I watch it in my own house, it is none of the government's fucking business.

  • IceTrey||

    Clarification:
    John wrote "If Sandy Springs wants to say that you can't open a sex shop for walk in customers, well that is their prerogative because they have the power to govern things that are done that involve the commons." I took that to mean they should be able to prohibit a shop anywhere in the city including the business district. Zoning is a whole other issue.

  • Edwin||

    I call bullshit on the zoning

    it's way over-used and is now in the realm of complete bans on population expansion in the name of profiting landowners

    There could be a reasonable zoning, but it would be limited to solely having residential zones (maybe hotels included; anywhere people sleep) vs. everything else. ANd maybe industrial zones for the smell.
    All height restrictions, lot coverage maximums, minimum lot sizes, unit restrictions etc. have to go out the window.

    I actually wouldn't be against much stronger ARCHITECTURAL control as a trade-off. Complete freedom, but you have to make your buildings look nice. One day maybe our cities could look as good as Europe's. But rent would still be cheap. Would be a worthy trade off

  • John||

    I would call bullshit on zoning if it relates to anything that doesn't directly affect my neighbors.

    So for example, I am down with zoning that says I can't run a sex shop out of my house because the increased traffic and parking of my customers is going to reduce the quality of life for my neighbors.

    I am not, however, done with a rule that says I can't run a mail order business out of my house. My making stuff and mailing it doesn't increase traffic or do anything else that affects my neighbors. It is therefore, none of the government's business.

  • ||

    I don't care if it is a rifle, a dildo or heroin, if you use it in your house and it comes in your mail, it is none of the government's God damned business.

    Which is funny because this is sorta the original purpose of the USPO to begin with and how/where the post office could exercise monopoly over niche markets and finally get back in the black.

    If Fedex, DHL, and UPS decide they want to obey the law and refuse to ship dildos to Sandy Springs, the USPO should gladly pick up the slack. If Fedex, DHL, and UPS decide they don't like the 2nd Am. and refuse to accept firearms, ammunition, components and accessories, that's fine, the USPO should gladly pick up the slack. If the BATF wants to tear open a box of contraband in transit, the carrier better be anybody but the USPO.

    The USPO cannot be held responsible for laws and regulations pertaining to the package's origin, destination, or points in transit but, if it won't damage or destroy the vehicle(s) used to move it, it ships.

  • IceTrey||

    Aw man, isn't Sandy Springs that libertarian poster child of a city that outsourced all of it's government functions to private companies? Now they've gone and done something as ridiculous as this. I guess tyranny never sleeps.

  • Scruffy Nerfherder||

    Obviously they got bored

  • np||

    Now if they had privatized security then legislators could legilsate their to their hearts content, without it actually mattering. Somehow I don't think that part of government was handed over to the private sector though.

  • See.More||

    Yeah, it's dumb. It is legal here in the state of Georgia to sell devices intended to sexually stimulate farm animals (for breeding), but not people. They are sold under the guise of "novelties" instead.

  • silverfang789||

    What a stupid ordinance! What do the cops do, peek in people's bedroom windows to make sure they don't have dildos?

  • IceTrey||

    It's not illegal to HAVE a dildo it's just illegal to sell them.

  • Billy Bones||

    This is the kind of asinine laws that we get when we continue to elect our leaders on the basis of theological ideology. The politicians here in Georgia are the epitome of the term "RINO". The GOP, at least in my purview, has always stood against "Big Government". Not this GOP. In the name of the Lord, these mentally bankrupt politicians want to control what you do in your bedroom, what you put into (and do with) your body, what you think and say. To me, that is the exact definition of "Big Government". Meanwhile, these "Christians" will do whatever they can to let the poor starve, the sick to die, the uneducated to go unemployed. Even as an atheist, I can say that is not very Christian.

  • GILMORE||

    "an ordinance banning the sale of sex toys to anyone without a "medical, scientific, educational, legislative, or law enforcement" purpose"

    INTRODUCING =

    GILMORE'S NEW AND IMPROVED LINE OF SURGICAL PROBING, LIGHT-REFRACTING, GAVEL-REPLACING, SELF-DEFENSE DILDOS: NOW WITH NEW "CHILDREN'S EDUCATION" HANDBOOK TO HELP WITH THOSE AWKWARD 'Why does daddy's out-y stand up?'-QUESTIONS! HYPO-ALLERGENIC AND DISWASHER SAFE!IT SLICES! IT DICES! IT MAKES A GREAT WEDDING GIFT! ORDER NOW AND RECEIVE THIS SET OF PARING KNIVES: A $99 VALUE! AGENTS ARE STANDING BY TO RECEIVE YOUR CALL

  • Agent Cupcake||

    Oh hell no. If I lived in that town, I'd just go full-on anarchist and let the chips fall where they may. I'm not even joking. When it comes to the state dictating women's orgasms, that's not even political. That's just pure women-hatred.

  • sarcasmic||

    War on women!

  • Agent Cupcake||

    Orgasms for all!

  • Slammer||

    There's always produce, I guess.

  • Bean Counter||

    "The city is expected to file a response in June."

    THERE'S money well spent.

  • ||

    Melissa is to be commended for taking action in this case. The city of Sandy Springs should be ashamed of itself for making such an ordinance.

    A gown adult should not have to offer an explanation or doctors prescription for a novelty item like this.

    Everyone on the Sandy Springs council needs to be recalled if this ordinance is not withdrawn.

  • Mike Parent||

    More small govt types legislating something that shouldn't be legislated.
    We'd all be better off if the police focused on crimes that have actual victims!

  • creech||

    Just whom is this law aimed at? Lesbians? How about veterans who were wounded and can't get it up (or no longer have it)? Anyone have an address where used and unwanted sex toys may be sent to the fine
    officials of Sandy Springs?

  • SusanM||

    It makes Jesus cry. Isn't that enough of a reason?

  • NL_||

    This is the same town that was featured in a Reason video for efficiently outsourcing its administration. http://reason.com/reasontv/201.....-the-city. I guess the ineradicable flaw with outsourced government functions is that you still have a government making decisions for people.

  • Gunslinger1964||

    Is this all this dip city has to do all day long besides steal peoples money bitching and moaning over a dam sex toy, whats wrong with you dam people in that city, You bunch of dam control freaks of nature. tell them to shove it where the sun don't shine while they go to hell you dam freaks !!

  • D. M. Michell||

    Another example of religious laws (American Sharia laws) in America. This law is the direct product of the personal moral or religious beliefs of some, trying to force those beliefs on others. This is yet another example of the absolute ignorance of what an inalienable right is: Any and all non-violent, non-coercive, non-larcenous, consensual adult behavior that does not physically harm others or their property or that is not a direct and immediate threat to others or their property, that does not disturb the peace or create a public nuisance, is your inalienable rights. The short version of that is this: honest, peaceful behavior that does not violate the rights of others, is your right. Get that damned religious laws back in the churches and out of the secular, political spectrum.

  • ||

    Another example of religious laws (American Sharia laws) in America.

    I hesitate to call this 'American Sharia'. Some of the most sanctimonious pricks I've been around are the one's who proudly declare themselves atheist/secularists;

    Mr. Henry and others want to—and have a right to—purchase
    items for and to sell art that includes objects deemed by the
    Ordinance to be unlawfully “obscene.” In fact, these objects are not at all “obscene.” These objects, much like the art in which they are used,
    do not appeal to the prurient interest in sex and do not portray in a
    patently offensive way sexual conduct. Rather, these objects and this art
    have serious literary, artistic, political, and scientific value.

    I certainly understand and agree with the right to own/buy/sell/use a dildo in the privacy of your own home, but a bisexual man making dildo art of 'scientific value' strikes me as some of the poorest ground to scream 'religious oppression' over.

    At least, I can't imagine he's sculpted David out of glass and is just missing one last piece. And if he has, I can't fault his neighbors if they enacted a law to prevent him from displaying/selling it in his front yard.

  • VicRattlehead||

    On an amusing note
    making Beastiality pornography is legal in GA
    doing solo porn is now a prosecutable offense if anything other than your hand is used
    theres a joke about 3d printing dildos here but i cant think of it

GET REASON MAGAZINE

Get Reason's print or digital edition before it’s posted online

  • Video Game Nation: How gaming is making America freer – and more fun.
  • Matt Welch: How the left turned against free speech.
  • Nothing Left to Cut? Congress can’t live within their means.
  • And much more.

SUBSCRIBE

advertisement