12 comments
So stupid.
The Supreme Court in 2005 declined to hear a challenge to Alabama’s ban on sex toy sales. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit upheld the ban, warning that overturning it could lead to prostitution.
Um, okay.
So stupid.
>The Supreme Court in 2005 declined to hear a challenge to Alabama’s ban on sex toy sales. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit upheld the ban, warning that overturning it could lead to prostitution.
Um, okay.
Useless law anyways. They could just use the brass knuckles loophole: "they're not dildos, they're paperweights shaped like dildos.
Useless law anyways. They could just use the brass knuckles loophole: "they're not dildos, they're paperweights *shaped* like dildos.
It's an inanimate object. Why does it need to be regulated?
It's an inanimate object. Why does it need to be regulated?
Or maybe over-zealous feminists wanting equal rights but not equal responsibilities? Sex is nothing but power plays anyway. If you take the sex away, there goes the power.
Or maybe over-zealous feminists wanting equal rights but not equal responsibilities? Sex is nothing but power plays anyway. If you take the sex away, there goes the power.
So the robots won't kill all humans when they take over the world.
So the robots won't kill all humans when they take over the world.
Just stop humans from breeding?
Just stop humans from breeding?
That would be a good thing, we're already using more resources than regrow. And it does not look good in the future.
That would be a good thing, we're already using more resources than regrow. And it [does not look good in the future](https://ourworldindata.org/future-population-growth).
So basically phucks.co with a wig