Can't Buy a Thrill: Substantive Due Process, Equal Protection, and Criminalizing Sex Toys

43 Pages Posted: 28 Apr 2009 Last revised: 24 May 2010

Date Written: April 25, 2009

Abstract

This Comment explores the split between the Fifth and Eleventh Circuits on the issue of sexual privacy and statutes that ban the sale and distribution of sexual devices. Through a discussion centered around Lawrence v. Texas, the Comment argues that the statutes, although perhaps silly or repugnant, are not unconstitutional as a matter of privacy, substantive due process liberty, equal protection, nor First Amendment sexual expression. In fact, a finding of unconstitutionality could potentially do more harm than good to the greater goals of understanding female sexuality and providing sexual realization and autonomy. Those goals will be best served, as they have been thus far, via legislative means and further scientific research into the role and nature of sex and orgasm in modern relationships.

Keywords: Substantive Due Process, Equal Protection, First Amendment, Expression

Suggested Citation

Glover, Richard, Can't Buy a Thrill: Substantive Due Process, Equal Protection, and Criminalizing Sex Toys (April 25, 2009). Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, Vol. 100, No. 2, 2010, Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=1395006

Richard Glover (Contact Author)

Northwestern University - Pritzker School of Law ( email )

Do you have negative results from your research you’d like to share?

Paper statistics

Downloads
398
Abstract Views
2,677
Rank
135,981
PlumX Metrics