Dildoes Not Covered by Emanations

A federal court has, alas, upheld a Mississippi law that bars the vending of rubber dongs and other similar fun gadgets. I'm not sure about the grounds for the decision—the appeals court essentially issued a one-paragraph decision saying that the district court got it right, and I haven't been able to track down that opinion. But it is puzzling to me how this squares with Griswold v. Connecticut, the (ahem) seminal right-to-privacy case that struck down a ban on contraception as invading a private space protected by "penumbras, formed by emanations" from (among others) the First, Fourth, and Ninth Amendments. I'm genuinely curious: If there's a right to sexual privacy strong enough that the state can't prevent you from buying condoms, or from sleeping with someone of the same sex, why doesn't the same right guarantee your freedom to pick up a Rabbit at Toys in Babeland? And, equally important, if you use an Internet-enabled vibrator on a partner living across the country, does that somehow count as interstate commerce? (HT: Boing Boing)