Milton Hostetler appeals from his conviction of distributing obscene materials in violation of Criminal Code 26-2101. We affirm.
1. A constitutional attack is made upon Criminal Code 26-2101 (c) which extends the definition of proscribed "obscene material" to "any device designed or marketed as useful primarily for the stimulation of human genital organs." It is contended that this section is overbroad, arbitrary and capricious, that it constitutes an unreasonable invasion of an adult's or married couple's right of sexual privacy, and that no necessity or rational basis appears for the total prohibition of these types of devices. These arguments were rejected in Pierce v. State, 239 Ga. 844 (239 SE2d 28) (1977)
, followed this day in Underwood v. State, 144 Ga. App. 684 (1978)
3. The questions sought to be raised by enumeration of error 11 have been decided adversely to Hostetler. Robinson v. State, 143 Ga. App. 37, 38 (3) (237 SE2d 436) (1977).