Passing thought on Scalia’s dissent
| June 30th, 2003You know, we live in a remarkable age when a member of the Supreme Court -the member who is probably the most admired by conservatives, who is often credited by left and right alike as one of the sharpest conservative minds in the nation - writes that the Court shouldn’t have ruled Texas’ anti-Sodomy law unconstitutional because such a ruling might get in the way of state laws outlawing masturbation.
Why is Scalia worried about preserving the states’ rights to outlaw masturbation? Why would anyone worry about that? It’s masturbation, for pity’s sake! Is there anywhere a less harmful action, with less reason for government concern, than masturbation?
Is this something anyone wants the states to do? Does anyone want to live somewhere where you can be arrested for masturbation?
Is this a serious issue for conservatives? Do conservatives secretly want to outlaw masturbation? When they get together to decide on their platform every four years, do they have back-room arguments about whether this is the year the anti-masturbation plank can be added to the platform?
What are the proposed penalties for masturbation? Is it a felony, or just a misdemeanor? If one mastrubates but does not climax, is that the same crime, or a lesser crime (like the difference between murder and attempted murder)? Would “three strikes” rules apply?
I just don’t understand conservatives.
June 30th, 2003 at 11:58 am
“…such a ruling might get in the way of state laws outlawing masturbation.” I really shouldn’t have been drinking coffee so close to the keyboard when I read that.
This comment was written by JennHi.Report this comment to the moderators
June 30th, 2003 at 12:15 pm
Are there any states who actually have anti-masturbation laws on the books?
What it seems to me that they don’t get is that SOME things that are unlawful in public are lawful in private. It is perfectly reasonable to have a law that makes it illegal for me to sit on a park bench and masturbate or I guess to have someone sodomize me, and still have it be lawful in the privacy of my home.
While I understand that there are slopes and some are actually slippery. Some are not.
I think that these people have a hard time thinking in shades of grey. Maybe they are value blind.
This comment was written by Marie Foster..
Report this comment to the moderators
June 30th, 2003 at 12:21 pm
What are the proposed penalties for masturbation?
Clearly, a slap on the wrist must play in there somewhere…
This comment was written by Lis.Report this comment to the moderators
June 30th, 2003 at 12:33 pm
I was thinking more along the lines of the cops secretly replacing the AA batteries in my nightstand drawer with Folgers Crystals ™.
:p
This comment was written by Amy S..Report this comment to the moderators
June 30th, 2003 at 2:25 pm
Against the law?!? Isn’t going blind ENOUGH punishment?
This comment was written by QrazyQat.Report this comment to the moderators
June 30th, 2003 at 5:24 pm
I poked around the Web a bit looking for state anti-masturbation laws, and didn’t find any, at least not any against solo private wanking-off. I suspect that () in fact Scalia just added that to make his list longer, and () if pressed, he’ll clarify to say that he meant (say) laws against masturbating someone else for money (say), which is perhaps not technically prostitution and therefore perhaps not technically blatant list-padding, or (say) against mutual masturbation between unmarried persons, which is of course a terrible sin and should be illegal. But if someone does find a state law against solitary wanking-off, I’d love to hear about it!
This comment was written by David Chess.Report this comment to the moderators
June 30th, 2003 at 5:30 pm
you must remember that part of the sexual pathology of social moralists is the frisson they experience from doing something that’s bad, and illegality certainly ups the ante considerably. in other words, he wants it to be illegal because that’ll make him cum harder.
sorry, i want to take a shower after reading that last line too, but i think it’s true.
This comment was written by r@d@r.Report this comment to the moderators
July 1st, 2003 at 8:33 am
That’s got to be one of the dumbest things I’ve ever read. Scalia’s an idiot.
This comment was written by Lorenzo.Report this comment to the moderators
July 1st, 2003 at 8:45 am
Actually, there are state laws against commerce in masturbation aids. But obviously commerce is a more appropriate subject for state regulation than one’s relations with, er, oneself.
This comment was written by PG.Report this comment to the moderators
July 1st, 2003 at 11:24 am
Well, you know what they say, more than three strikes is indeed a wank.
This comment was written by Elayne Riggs.Report this comment to the moderators
December 4th, 2003 at 11:32 am
Public masturbation I can understand, but practically speaking it seems to be more an exercise of mental masturbation on the part of Judges and prosecutors if they think that masturbation, done tastefully and in privacy can every be proven at trial… assuming decent corpus delicti laws in the state in question. Also, what jury would not nullify in a case like that?
This comment was written by arizona dui lawyer.Report this comment to the moderators