Woman Accused Of Selling Vibrator Disguised As Duck
“Katherine Williams says the yellow ducky sponge she put on sale at a flea market is merely a child’s toy. City officials say the vibrator inside makes it a sex toy. But officials in this Nashville suburb backed off from citing Williams for violating the city’s sexually oriented business ordinance because she had already taken down her display by the time police responded to complaints Saturday. Nearby vendors also refused to be witnesses in the case… Williams, whose Passions & Pleasures business sells lotions and adult novelties at in-home parties, described her product line as ‘PG-13′ and said she got only two negative comments at the flea market. ‘Nothing we do is nasty, unless you have a nasty mind,’ she said, turning a knob on the yellow ducky’s tail to make the sponge vibrate. ‘My 3-year-old son loves to play with this duck in the bath. He puts it on his neck and on his head.’” —local6.com (US)
(Thanks to alanr for the link.)
Moral of this story? Ridiculous times call for ridiculous measures. Absurd laws demand the absurd excuses needed to evade them.
It is insane for state legislatures to ban sex toys and “adult novelties” for the simple reason that darn near anything can be used as a sex toy. (What are they going to do — outlaw cucumbers too?) And now apparently Ms. Williams is using precisely this ambiguity in her defense. Let’s call a spade a spade: what she is selling is a sex toy. No doubt about it. You can even read reviews of it: “It’s [sic] little beak is great for clitoral stimulation and the tail end has a nice flattish surface which is great when pressed against the vaginal area. The vibrations are strong without being too strong. I can also leave it out on display in the bathroom even when my mother in-law comes round, it’s so discreet.”
The circumstantial evidence strongly suggests that Ms. Williams broke local laws selling the duck. But you know what? Those laws are absolutely idiotic. Good for her for maintaining the obviously fake excuse that the vibrating duck is a child’s toy — even if it is kind of icky to think that she wanks with it and then lets her three-year-old son play with it in the tub. Hopefully he’s not like most kids that age who tend to put toys in their mouths…
Does everyone remember the story about the Harry Potter’s broomstick line that was hastily withdrawn from the market?
what about vibrateing toothbrushes?
All comments become the property of PervScan. You must use an email address to post a comment. However, PervScan disallows email addresses in the text of comments.
Tits Tits Tits