A right to sexual privacy is arguable.
But it's not explicitly written into the Constitution. The glib joke made here overlooks the way positive law works; there is no constitutional right to own a vibrator, while there is one to bear arms. You may dislike the way that works out, but it's disingenuous (and not a bit frivolous) to compare the two as equal. It's without question a silly law; I cannot believe the existence or possession of dildos could harm anyone or anything, in Alabama or anywhere else. Courts have ruled that there is a general expectation of a right to privacy, but it's nebulously defined. I would expect invoking the 2nd Amendment in defense of a not explicitly constiutional
"right" is a loser both judicially and politically.