You remember my lovely post about truck nuts, right? Well, it seems some people more notable than I have also taken notice of these delightful novelty items. I dropped by Jeffrey Rowland’s blog this morning to find that he, too, takes issue with genitalia for motor vehicles. Not only that, but he pointed out that the widely beloved comic Achewood has even dealt with the topic in its own insultingly sophomoric way.
But that’s not all! I guess this truck nuts phenomenon is so well-endowed that it is now raising the eyebrows of politicians – particularly one Lionell Spruill, Delegate for the 77th District of Virginia. And I guess it’s relatively big news.
According to The Virginian-Pilot:
The buzz in Richmond and around the globe is all about HB 1452: “No person shall display upon or equip any motor vehicle with any object or device that depicts, represents or resembles human genitalia, regardless of size or scale.”
The penalty for driving around with dangling plastic genitals could be $250.
At first, I was aggravated that it was a Democrat who was championing this one because I felt it provided a perfect example of the very untrue things conservatives claim to hate about liberals: that we feel the need to squelch everything that even remotely disturbs our overly sensitive natures. And then it occurred to me that if I installed a hood ornament that looked like a great big erect penis, complete with veins, I’d probably be cited for some form of indecency. So I suppose it stands to reason that certain Virginians might want to ban the frighteningly detailed novelty ballsacks.
But should they? On the one hand – and this is coming from someone who has one hell of a disgusting a sense of humor – I think they’re tasteless and silly and not at all clever. On the other hand, it’s not like they’re the direct cause of Virginia’s social woes. I doubt burglars choose their targets based on whether the vehicle in the driveway has gonads.
I understand the need for decency in a civilized society, but where is that line when it comes to novelty items? Is Spruill overreacting? Should cars have body parts hanging from them that are, by law, covered up on their drivers? Or is it completely stupid to worry about this sort of thing in light of problems like homelessness and mental illness?
What it finally boils down to is a matter of free speech and, as such, is worth consideration. I personally think such a ban is pointless, but I just don’t care enough about truck nuts to rally behind Spruill’s detractors. To me, it’s a major case of Who Gives a Shit?
Although Rowland does make a good point:
I guess people should technically be allowed to have the fake balls, but why do people need to want to have some fake balls? It's just crap is what it is.