I enjoyed your article but most of it is just urban legends. As an example I grew up in Connersville, Wisconsin which the internet legend is: “It is illegal for a man to fire his gun in Connersville, Wis., when his lover reaches climax.”. However Connersville, Wisconsin is an unincorporated village which has no laws or legal authority to pass laws or ordinances. Even the surrounding townships do not have any ordinances of this nature. I suspect many or most of the other things you list are also just false. These silly things continue to be believed only because they get repeated.

Regarding the Kentucky law: You can’t marry the same man three times in some Kentucky townships. I assume that this does not apply if the man is a brother or first cousin?

The Nebraska law about “clean white nightshirts” does make some sense. WAAaaaay back when hotel beds were an uncovered mattress and a blanket, this would help keep the bedding clean, or maybe I should say, less dirty. However, it is good for a laugh.

SEF

Alexandria, Ariz.????????????
There is none.

Why would you want to have sex with a porcupine?

What about a dead fish?

In Nebraska, couples sleeping at a hotel must wear the clean, cotton nightshirt provided by the hotel, even when they have sex. This comment is NOT true. I live in the state of nebraska…I would like to know if this law is still in effect???

i agree with others cute story. but many are urban legends. there is no law in connecticut outlawing private sexual behavior by consenting adults. makes you wonder if the facts are checked.

Regarding the Kentucky law: You can’t marry the same man three times in some Kentucky townships this is also true in Missouri where my aunt married and divorced her first husband three times and they can no longer remarry in that state.

Without a doubt the quirkiness of these laws on the books are amusing. So much so, the entertainment value is probably better keeping them on the books than in striking them.

However, Dr. Fulbright makes quite a broad brush statement when she said “…what consenting adults do in their own bedrooms is their own business.” I would love to hear Dr. Fulbright’s opinion if those consenting adults were say, brother-sister. Or father-daughter. Or man-woman-goat/horse/pig/etc. I am in no way proposing yet another intrusion into our privacy but surely a society must have a set of acceptable norms in order to function. The alternative at its extreme is anarchy where anything goes.

Why is there a section on a news channel about sex to begin with? I’m sure many of you will say don’t click it. Just as Foxnews has allowed this, I will give my 2 cents. We don’t need this type of junk on a news station. Foxnews has been respectable up to this point. I have been away for a while and come back to find this. Have you all lost your cotton picken minds? You should be teaching if anything about not having sex (looking at your other articles) and these stupid laws. What garbage this is. When are you going to put something that is worthwhile on here? Let’s say teaching about teens not having sex, or adultry is against the law, multiple partners cause pain and divorce and finally how about just taking this Dr. off of here and put up something about the muppets. This way it will be worth clicking on.

There is no room in the USA for disrespect of God. Here it is cleary seen. We are praying against this Dr. and her outlandish antics.

We live in a schizophrenic society. On one hand we tout ourselves as the most free on the planet, and on the other we retain much of our puritanical baggage. Our laws with regard to sex and drug use are ridiculous and we waste SO much taxpayer money trying to enforce them. A thousand years from now, the oldest profession will still be the oldest profession and the war on drugs will either be a historical or a continuing failure. I hope to see a turn towards sanity in my lifetime, but won’t hold my breath.

In Alabama, it is not “sex toys” that are banned as your article states; only their sale within the state. Personal possession and use is permitted.

The item about oral sex being illegal in Indiana is incorrect. Indiana law uses “deviant contact” or a similar phrase to describe alternatives to procreative sex. However, the “deviant acts” are not illegal. They are listed so that they can be included as rape or sexualt assault in the appropriate non-consensual situations.

The only quirk in Indiana law on sex is that it is legal to have a threesome, so long as all participate. But, it may be illegal, if a person watches without participating (whether for pay or not).

Even if only some of these are actually in the statutes, they are but a few more examples of one human trying to determine the morals of another. It isn’t going to happen. you can legislate all you want, but you cannot legislate morality. Live and let live.

Just goes to prove that politicians of yesterday are as dumb as they are today.

I usually enjoy articles like this, but this one suffers from extremely poor research. There are laws like this on the books in some states, and some have even featured in recent court cases. That would have made an interesting article, but instead we get a collection of unverified urban legends.

it is good for a laugh

Funny to see that Pennsylvania law about 16 women constituting a brothel here! When I went to college in PA, fraternities could have houses for their members but sororities could not. The reason? The university observed the 16-women limit law. I always thought that was just a local myth!

it is legal for unmarried people in georgia to have sex they just can’t do it in a public place. they changes that one

The self righteous have an amazing knack for seeing evil anywhere….. except in the mirror!….

Instead of ethnic cleansing, the anally retentive, sexually dysfunctional, sex hating “Christian” Fascists even before our founding have wanted to use our government, which was, thankfully, mandated by the Constitution to be religiously neutral, to pursue the religious cleansing of “heretics” in our nation!

Responsible freedom, not anarchy, is the right to think, say and do those things that do not significantly physically harm your neighbor.
Religious freedom is not the right to force your religious morals on your neighbor or vice versa.

We should legalize and regulate consensual sex and the use of recreational and nutritional chemicals. The high divorce rate in our sexually dysfunctional, anally retentive society would probably drop and most people would use their new freedoms responsibly.

Christian fascists, today, like their Jewish counterparts in the 1st century, love the Victorian double standard hypocrisy where your “proper Christian” moral facade is displayed publically while you pursue your real interests privately. Yahshua ha Mashiach, Jesus the Christ, was not fooled, and He does not want us to be fooled either….

If we would legalize and regulate recreational and nutritional supplements, we could get rid of a huge bureaucracy and crime syndicate that feeds on the efforts of millions of humans to be free. Prohibition created a huge tax dollar supported enforcement bureaucracy, murderous crime syndicates and ruined the lives of many more descent productive citizens than alcohol ever did. The same is true of recreational and nutritional supplement chemicals.

Any position other than missionary is also illegal in the U.S. Army. Punishable in Military Court.

I’m sure there must be a law in some state that bans you from taking a shower naked. Where do these people come up with these. More politics please!

First, I believe the California law that made it illegal for either partner to reach climax before the other during foreplay would be applauded by many a women who have seen their husband turn over and go to sleep before finishing their task.

Second, I suppose it’s good I do not live in Mississippi because I get aroused every time I view Dr. Fulbright’s photo in her column.

Third, people sure get worked up over a harmlessly fun article.

If you actually know your social history, as I think anyone who is going to write about historical events/laws should, most of these laws make perfect sense for the period they were written. For instance, the two that say a man can not seduce a woman with the promise of marriage – this is completely viable when you think back to the days that a virgn was the desired wife and that having intercourse prior to marriage usually classified you as “used” and undesirable for marriage. Many women would then have sex with a man they thought woiuld marry her afterward. The other viable one is the “three drinks of beer” one. If all you have ever studied about history are the things you read in your middle-school textbook, then you wouldn’t know that the fight for prohibition was started in the Temperance period by women who were fed up with their husbands going out and getting drunk only to either cheat on them or come home and rape them. The law against a man having too many drinks most likely was in reference to a man not getting drunk and taking advantage of his wife. Two consenting adults can easily turn into one pushing themselves on the other given the right circumstnaces. So many of these laws, in fact, make a lot of sense for the day, and perhaps even for now.

And to add: in Colorado, at one time (I don’t know if they still do it), men who were caught soliciting sex from a prostitute were printed up in the paper. The thought behind that was that the fear of family or friends finding out that a man paid for or intended to pay for sex would thwart them from doing so. Because prostitution is illigal…

I could find NONE of the laws attributed to MN in the online MN Statutes web site — more urban legend here too?