• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Oklahoma court: oral sex is not rape if victim is unconscious from drinking

HenryChinaski said:
That's because backwards thinking rednecks wrote the law.
Click to expand...

Listen, you thought spousal rape was legal in Oklahoma so why don't you just admit you don't actually know anything about Oklahoma rape laws.
 
Why would I want to have sex with an 'oral' anyway?
 
Deuce said:
Incorrect according to that link.

My surprise is that the mouth is seemingly not included in their definition of rape.
Click to expand...

It's not. I say...SO ****ING WHAT!

There is a thing in law called "Discovery". It's the exchange of evidence between all sides and in some cases certain types of evidence must be submitted to the court before the case can official be put on the docket. If there was even the remotest chance that they case would have been dismissed by the court on this technicality, both the Defense AND PROSECUTOR should have been notified. Why? Because trying the case was a waste of state personnel and taxpayer money...not to mention the fact that a girl who was not only victim of mouth raped, but also victim of idiocracy.

But had the DA not been sucker punched with this technicality by the higher court, it would have produced a different legal theory in the case that would have gotten the kid convicted.

The girl had a .34 blood alcohol level, which means she was incapacitated for a period of time. Some people have been known to die from blood alcohol levels in that range.

The guy's sperm as found numerous places on her body...and of course inside her mouth. But the forensic evidence, which could timeline how long the girl was unconscious and even prior to that - being in such a level of intoxication that even that would have been considered a violation against her as she couldn't have given consent in a state of mind for her to do so.

But since the word "Mouth" wasn't found in the Oklahoma rape laws, it automatically nulls any forensic evident. So at the moment in Oklahoma "Mouth Rape" is legal. But I dare say that since rape anywhere is an act of violence, this was a contrived loophole by the higher court. Oklahoma is one of the most misogynist, sexist states in the nation.

Somebody who would take advantage of this legal loophole and see if they get away with mouth rape the judges who knew damn well they could have "legally" created a different outcome. I'm betting they wouldn't get off if these judges were mouth raped before legislative action can be changed to correct the language. Not that the assailant would be charged with mouth rape, but other charges what would send them away for quite sometime to come.
 
Deuce said:
Listen, you thought spousal rape was legal in Oklahoma so why don't you just admit you don't actually know anything about Oklahoma rape laws.
Click to expand...

Sticking your wang in someone's mouth without consent is ****ing rape. End of story. In Oklahoma, it's statutory rape for a man over 18 to have sex with a female under the age of 18, provided she’s a virgin. So yeah Oklahoma is ****ed up.
 
Last edited:
Removable Mind said:
It's not. I say...SO ****ING WHAT!

There is a thing in law called "Discovery". It's the exchange of evidence between all sides and in some cases certain types of evidence must be submitted to the court before the case can official be put on the docket. If there was even the remotest chance that they case would have been dismissed by the court on this technicality, both the Defense AND PROSECUTOR should have been notified. Why? Because trying the case was a waste of state personnel and taxpayer money...not to mention the fact that a girl who was not only victim of mouth raped, but also victim of idiocracy.

But had the DA not been sucker punched with this technicality by the higher court, it would have produced a different legal theory in the case that would have gotten the kid convicted.

The girl had a .34 blood alcohol level, which means she was incapacitated for a period of time. Some people have been known to die from blood alcohol levels in that range.

The guy's sperm as found numerous places on her body...and of course inside her mouth. But the forensic evidence, which could timeline how long the girl was unconscious and even prior to that - being in such a level of intoxication that even that would have been considered a violation against her as she couldn't have given consent in a state of mind for her to do so.

But since the word "Mouth" wasn't found in the Oklahoma rape laws, it automatically nulls any forensic evident. So at the moment in Oklahoma "Mouth Rape" is legal. But I dare say that since rape anywhere is an act of violence, this was a contrived loophole by the higher court. Oklahoma is one of the most misogynist, sexist states in the nation.

Somebody who would take advantage of this legal loophole and see if they get away with mouth rape the judges who knew damn well they could have "legally" created a different outcome. I'm betting they wouldn't get off if these judges were mouth raped before legislative action can be changed to correct the language. Not that the assailant would be charged with mouth rape, but other charges what would send them away for quite sometime to come.
Click to expand...

"Mouth rape" as you so charmingly call it, is the offense of Forcible Sodomy under Oklahoma law. Unfortunately, the law against forcible sodomy was poorly written.
Title 21 Sec 888 Forcible Sodomy
The crime of forcible sodomy shall include:
1. Sodomy committed by a person over eighteen (18) years of age upon a person under sixteen (16) years of age; or
2. Sodomy committed upon a person incapable through mental illness or any unsoundness of mind of giving legal consent regardless of the age of the person committing the crime; or
3. Sodomy accomplished with any person by means of force, violence, or threats of force or violence accompanied by apparent power of execution regardless of the age of the victim or the person committing the crime; or
4. Sodomy committed by a state, county, municipal or political subdivision employee or a contractor or an employee of a contractor of the state, a county, a municipality or political subdivision of this state upon a person who is under the legal custody, supervision or authority of a state agency, a county, a municipality or a political subdivision of this state; or
5. Sodomy committed upon a person who is at least sixteen (16) years of age but less than twenty (20) years of age and is a student of any public or private secondary school, junior high or high school, or public vocational school, with a person who is eighteen (18) years of age or older and is employed by the same school system.

None of those 5 criteria apply. So, by the law, if not common decency, he was not guilty of forcible sodomy. And we've already established that it wasn't rape.

So what are you advocating? That the judge should have ignored the law and convicted the guy of...what?
 
pinqy said:
"Mouth rape" as you so charmingly call it, is the offense of Forcible Sodomy under Oklahoma law. Unfortunately, the law against forcible sodomy was poorly written.
Title 21 Sec 888 Forcible Sodomy
The crime of forcible sodomy shall include:
1. Sodomy committed by a person over eighteen (18) years of age upon a person under sixteen (16) years of age; or
2. Sodomy committed upon a person incapable through mental illness or any unsoundness of mind of giving legal consent regardless of the age of the person committing the crime; or
3. Sodomy accomplished with any person by means of force, violence, or threats of force or violence accompanied by apparent power of execution regardless of the age of the victim or the person committing the crime; or
4. Sodomy committed by a state, county, municipal or political subdivision employee or a contractor or an employee of a contractor of the state, a county, a municipality or political subdivision of this state upon a person who is under the legal custody, supervision or authority of a state agency, a county, a municipality or a political subdivision of this state; or
5. Sodomy committed upon a person who is at least sixteen (16) years of age but less than twenty (20) years of age and is a student of any public or private secondary school, junior high or high school, or public vocational school, with a person who is eighteen (18) years of age or older and is employed by the same school system.

None of those 5 criteria apply. So, by the law, if not common decency, he was not guilty of forcible sodomy. And we've already established that it wasn't rape.

So what are you advocating? That the judge should have ignored the law and convicted the guy of...what?
Click to expand...

Ironic being that Oklahoma still has a law on the books stating that oral sex is a misdemeanor and is punishable by one year in jail and a $2,500 fine.
 
Removable Mind said:
It's not. I say...SO ****ING WHAT!

There is a thing in law called "Discovery". It's the exchange of evidence between all sides and in some cases certain types of evidence must be submitted to the court before the case can official be put on the docket. If there was even the remotest chance that they case would have been dismissed by the court on this technicality, both the Defense AND PROSECUTOR should have been notified. Why? Because trying the case was a waste of state personnel and taxpayer money...not to mention the fact that a girl who was not only victim of mouth raped, but also victim of idiocracy.

But had the DA not been sucker punched with this technicality by the higher court, it would have produced a different legal theory in the case that would have gotten the kid convicted.

The girl had a .34 blood alcohol level, which means she was incapacitated for a period of time. Some people have been known to die from blood alcohol levels in that range.

The guy's sperm as found numerous places on her body...and of course inside her mouth. But the forensic evidence, which could timeline how long the girl was unconscious and even prior to that - being in such a level of intoxication that even that would have been considered a violation against her as she couldn't have given consent in a state of mind for her to do so.

But since the word "Mouth" wasn't found in the Oklahoma rape laws, it automatically nulls any forensic evident. So at the moment in Oklahoma "Mouth Rape" is legal. But I dare say that since rape anywhere is an act of violence, this was a contrived loophole by the higher court. Oklahoma is one of the most misogynist, sexist states in the nation.

Somebody who would take advantage of this legal loophole and see if they get away with mouth rape the judges who knew damn well they could have "legally" created a different outcome. I'm betting they wouldn't get off if these judges were mouth raped before legislative action can be changed to correct the language. Not that the assailant would be charged with mouth rape, but other charges what would send them away for quite sometime to come.
Click to expand...

The first question I thought up was whether or not it constituted some form of sexual assault under Oklahoma law.

pinqy said:
"Mouth rape" as you so charmingly call it, is the offense of Forcible Sodomy under Oklahoma law. Unfortunately, the law against forcible sodomy was poorly written.
Title 21 Sec 888 Forcible Sodomy
The crime of forcible sodomy shall include:
1. Sodomy committed by a person over eighteen (18) years of age upon a person under sixteen (16) years of age; or
2. Sodomy committed upon a person incapable through mental illness or any unsoundness of mind of giving legal consent regardless of the age of the person committing the crime; or
3. Sodomy accomplished with any person by means of force, violence, or threats of force or violence accompanied by apparent power of execution regardless of the age of the victim or the person committing the crime; or
4. Sodomy committed by a state, county, municipal or political subdivision employee or a contractor or an employee of a contractor of the state, a county, a municipality or political subdivision of this state upon a person who is under the legal custody, supervision or authority of a state agency, a county, a municipality or a political subdivision of this state; or
5. Sodomy committed upon a person who is at least sixteen (16) years of age but less than twenty (20) years of age and is a student of any public or private secondary school, junior high or high school, or public vocational school, with a person who is eighteen (18) years of age or older and is employed by the same school system.

None of those 5 criteria apply. So, by the law, if not common decency, he was not guilty of forcible sodomy. And we've already established that it wasn't rape.

So what are you advocating? That the judge should have ignored the law and convicted the guy of...what?
Click to expand...


Oh jesus christ, Oklahoma.
 
May be guys can now rape comatose patients too. What if someone took an object to the hindquarters of these law interpreting morons. (not saying anyone should, just wondering what they were thinking) I wonder how they would feel about their ruling.
This really upsets me, and we should realize that this ruling could come down in any state, so stop your nonsense about OK for crying out loud. Trying to find posts on topic is like trying to find an adult in a daycare center.
 
pinqy said:
"Mouth rape" as you so charmingly call it, is the offense of Forcible Sodomy under Oklahoma law. Unfortunately, the law against forcible sodomy was poorly written.
Title 21 Sec 888 Forcible Sodomy
The crime of forcible sodomy shall include:
1. Sodomy committed by a person over eighteen (18) years of age upon a person under sixteen (16) years of age; or
2. Sodomy committed upon a person incapable through mental illness or any unsoundness of mind of giving legal consent regardless of the age of the person committing the crime; or
3. Sodomy accomplished with any person by means of force, violence, or threats of force or violence accompanied by apparent power of execution regardless of the age of the victim or the person committing the crime; or
4. Sodomy committed by a state, county, municipal or political subdivision employee or a contractor or an employee of a contractor of the state, a county, a municipality or political subdivision of this state upon a person who is under the legal custody, supervision or authority of a state agency, a county, a municipality or a political subdivision of this state; or
5. Sodomy committed upon a person who is at least sixteen (16) years of age but less than twenty (20) years of age and is a student of any public or private secondary school, junior high or high school, or public vocational school, with a person who is eighteen (18) years of age or older and is employed by the same school system.

None of those 5 criteria apply. So, by the law, if not common decency, he was not guilty of forcible sodomy. And we've already established that it wasn't rape.

So what are you advocating? That the judge should have ignored the law and convicted the guy of...what?
Click to expand...

So "UNSOUND MIND" in section 2 doesn't work, huh? Unsound mind in the legal world also means "Infirmity of mind".

"The state of being infirm; feebleness; an imperfection or weakness; esp., an unsound, unhealthy, or debilitated state; a disease; a malady; as, infirmity of body or mind. A personal frailty or failing; foible; eccentricity; a weakness or defect.

The girl was in a debilitated state. Also intoxication is a form of "poisoning". She wasn't capable of giving consent. And forensic evidence could clearly have created a timeline of events which would have shown time spans and when she was potentially able to give consent.

Know of guys who like having sex (an act to achieve a sexual orgasm) with a passed out girl, guy, goat, monkey and really believes that it's okay to do so?????
 
Removable Mind said:
So "UNSOUND MIND" in section 2 doesn't work, huh? Unsound mind in the legal world also means "Infirmity of mind".

"The state of being infirm; feebleness; an imperfection or weakness; esp., an unsound, unhealthy, or debilitated state; a disease; a malady; as, infirmity of body or mind. A personal frailty or failing; foible; eccentricity; a weakness or defect.

The girl was in a debilitated state. Also intoxication is a form of "poisoning". She wasn't capable of giving consent. And forensic evidence could clearly have created a timeline of events which would have shown time spans and when she was potentially able to give consent.

Know of guys who like having sex (an act to achieve a sexual orgasm) with a passed out girl, guy, goat, monkey and really believes that it's okay to do so?????
Click to expand...

The problem is that under the rape statute, "unsound mind" and "intoxicated" and "unconscious" are three different criteria. Therefore, if neither intoxication nor unconsciousness are part of "unsound mind" as criteria for rape, neither can be considered part of "unsound mind" in any other part of the law unless specifically stated.
Let's look again:
Forcible Sodomy is: B. The crime of forcible sodomy shall include:
1. Sodomy committed by a person over eighteen (18) years of age upon a person under sixteen (16) years of age; or
2. Sodomy committed upon a person incapable through mental illness or any unsoundness of mind of giving legal consent regardless of the age of the person committing the crime; or
3. Sodomy accomplished with any person by means of force, violence, or threats of force or violence accompanied by apparent power of execution regardless of the age of the victim or the person committing the crime; or
4. Sodomy committed by a state, county, municipal or political subdivision employee or a contractor or an employee of a contractor of the state, a county, a municipality or political subdivision of this state upon a person who is under the legal custody, supervision or authority of a state agency, a county, a municipality or a political subdivision of this state; or
5. Sodomy committed upon a person who is at least sixteen (16) years of age but less than twenty (20) years of age and is a student of any public or private secondary school, junior high or high school, or public vocational school, with a person who is eighteen (18) years of age or older and is employed by the same school system.

Rape is
§21-1111. Rape defined.
A. Rape is an act of sexual intercourse involving vaginal or anal penetration accomplished with a male or female who is not the spouse of the perpetrator and who may be of the same or the opposite sex as the perpetrator under any of the following circumstances:
1. Where the victim is under sixteen (16) years of age;
2. Where the victim is incapable through mental illness or any other unsoundness of mind, whether temporary or permanent, of giving legal consent;
3. Where force or violence is used or threatened, accompanied by apparent power of execution to the victim or to another person;
4. Where the victim is intoxicated by a narcotic or anesthetic agent, administered by or with the privity of the accused as a means of forcing the victim to submit;
5. Where the victim is at the time unconscious of the nature of the act and this fact is known to the accused;
........ (rest of the statute not included due to length.

So you cannot claim that "incapable through mental illness or any unsoundness of mind of giving legal consent" includes being intoxicated or unconscious in the Forcible Sodomy definition but not the Rape definition. Note that NOBODY is saying that what this guy did was okay. We're just saying it wasn't illegal as the law is currently written.
 
pinqy said:
The problem is that under the rape statute, "unsound mind" and "intoxicated" and "unconscious" are three different criteria. Therefore, if neither intoxication nor unconsciousness are part of "unsound mind" as criteria for rape, neither can be considered part of "unsound mind" in any other part of the law unless specifically stated.
Let's look again:
Forcible Sodomy is: B. The crime of forcible sodomy shall include:
1. Sodomy committed by a person over eighteen (18) years of age upon a person under sixteen (16) years of age; or
2. Sodomy committed upon a person incapable through mental illness or any unsoundness of mind of giving legal consent regardless of the age of the person committing the crime; or
3. Sodomy accomplished with any person by means of force, violence, or threats of force or violence accompanied by apparent power of execution regardless of the age of the victim or the person committing the crime; or
4. Sodomy committed by a state, county, municipal or political subdivision employee or a contractor or an employee of a contractor of the state, a county, a municipality or political subdivision of this state upon a person who is under the legal custody, supervision or authority of a state agency, a county, a municipality or a political subdivision of this state; or
5. Sodomy committed upon a person who is at least sixteen (16) years of age but less than twenty (20) years of age and is a student of any public or private secondary school, junior high or high school, or public vocational school, with a person who is eighteen (18) years of age or older and is employed by the same school system.

Rape is
§21-1111. Rape defined.
A. Rape is an act of sexual intercourse involving vaginal or anal penetration accomplished with a male or female who is not the spouse of the perpetrator and who may be of the same or the opposite sex as the perpetrator under any of the following circumstances:
1. Where the victim is under sixteen (16) years of age;
2. Where the victim is incapable through mental illness or any other unsoundness of mind, whether temporary or permanent, of giving legal consent;
3. Where force or violence is used or threatened, accompanied by apparent power of execution to the victim or to another person;
4. Where the victim is intoxicated by a narcotic or anesthetic agent, administered by or with the privity of the accused as a means of forcing the victim to submit;
5. Where the victim is at the time unconscious of the nature of the act and this fact is known to the accused;
........ (rest of the statute not included due to length.

So you cannot claim that "incapable through mental illness or any unsoundness of mind of giving legal consent" includes being intoxicated or unconscious in the Forcible Sodomy definition but not the Rape definition. Note that NOBODY is saying that what this guy did was okay. We're just saying it wasn't illegal as the law is currently written.
Click to expand...

I read everything you did. I also read the law that you didn't include in your previous post, "which you now post above" (and the section highlighted in read), which leads back to my original argument and the use of the term "Mouth Rape".

And it's this provision of the law that my arguments have been built around. This panel of judges didn't undermine just what the guy did to the girl, which was "mouth rape". The panel of judges created a loophole via their interpretation by excluding all other bodily orifices and parts as though they couldn't be subject to being raped. This is sucker punching and putting at risk every citizen in the state by significantly diluting the intent of the law by playing word games with the letter of the law and therefore they I opinion that they have violated common sense and decency in the process.

In reality - and as others have used the term "common sense and decency"....

The guy could have rubbed his penis back and forth across the girl's navel, between her breast, or between her toes until he ejaculated ...and by all standards of definitions of rape...that act would have been rape if she didn't consent to it. Using one person's body to stimulate another's sex organ - without consent - is rape.

Do you realized how many times defense attorneys, prosecutors, and judges prequalify cases as to their viability PRIOR to a case going to trial - OVER such technicalities? This case, as it was presented - should not have been tried under the charges it was.

And some in DP have decided concluded even if "mouth" or other body parts were stated in the law, that it would still be the girl's word against the guys that she didn't give consent. There's ample forensic evidence that could be extrapolated that could prove she didn't give consent.
 
Removable Mind said:


Well, folks, there you have it. Now we know for certain why Texas hasn't slide off into the Gulf. Oklahoma SUCKS! The radical right wing control in Oklahoma is taking the state straight to hell...a living hell.

It just doesn't get much crazier than this.
Click to expand...

oklahoma is governed by radical islamists ? :lol:..

anyway it is reallt terrible news for women,too many oralists will be encouraged now
 
Medusa said:
oklahoma is governed by radical islamists ? :lol:..

anyway it is reallt terrible news for women,too many oralists will be encouraged now
Click to expand...

Some would like that to be the case, but it's the common run-of-the-mill hard right wacknuts. Yes, it's terrible news for all citizens. Dunno, somebody posted that oral sex is finable...like 2500.00. So I guess doing it in public isn't a good idea, huh.

Thanks...
 
Removable Mind said:
Some would like that to be the case, but it's the common run-of-the-mill hard right wacknuts. Yes, it's terrible news for all citizens. Dunno, somebody posted that oral sex is finable...like 2500.00. So I guess doing it in public isn't a good idea, huh.

Thanks...
Click to expand...

drink and go if so :mrgreen:
 
Deuce said:
Incorrect according to that link.

My surprise is that the mouth is seemingly not included in their definition of rape.
Click to expand...

Well, clearly anything involving the mouth is "sodomy." I never said that their laws didn't need some updating.
 
Removable Mind said:
Hahahaha! You go John. If you buy this joke of a decision...well, ...gosh, good on you, man. Every try forcing your penis down the throat of a passed out girl? Can you imagine the fun that must be?

Yes, the good folks of Oklahoma are clearly ignorant, have been for eons, but they've been that way so long it's all understandable about how these types of radicals made their way into the system.
Click to expand...

Why would this be so absurd in the overall scheme of things? Many on this forum are arguing that a person with a 5 oclock shadow, and wearing a dress, can pull his junk out in front of 11 year old girls in a public bathroom.
 
RetiredUSN said:
Why would this be so absurd in the overall scheme of things? Many on this forum are arguing that a person with a 5 oclock shadow, and wearing a dress, can pull his junk out in front of 11 year old girls in a public bathroom.
Click to expand...

Now R...

Who specifically has made the claim that a man (or trans) can deliberately expose himself in front of any age female in a public bathroom....and I'm assuming you are really talking about "women's bathrooms".

Are their urinals in women's bathrooms? Or commonly open stalls in women's bathrooms?
 
Removable Mind said:
Now R...

Who specifically has made the claim that a man (or trans) can deliberately expose himself in front of any age female in a public bathroom....and I'm assuming you are really talking about "women's bathrooms".

Are their urinals in women's bathrooms? Or commonly open stalls in women's bathrooms?
Click to expand...

Off course I was being a little out of line in accordance with the current subject, but where does/do the(se) laws end?

Can he have his junk exposed as he is opening the stall door in feigned embarrassment towards the little girl?

It doesn't surprise me to see idiotic decisions made by the Oklahoma courts at all, look where society is heading.
 
RetiredUSN said:
Off course I was being a little out of line in accordance with the current subject, but where does/do the(se) laws end?

Can he have his junk exposed as he is opening the stall door in feigned embarrassment towards the little girl?

It doesn't surprise me to see idiotic decisions made by the Oklahoma courts at all, look where society is heading.
Click to expand...

On the flipside, I recall a case where a man became a sex offender when he was nude in his own home. A mother and daughter took a shortcut through his yard, entering his property without permission, and looked in a window and saw him.

So where does your law end?
 
RetiredUSN said:
Off course I was being a little out of line in accordance with the current subject, but where does/do the(se) laws end?

Can he have his junk exposed as he is opening the stall door in feigned embarrassment towards the little girl?

It doesn't surprise me to see idiotic decisions made by the Oklahoma courts at all, look where society is heading.
Click to expand...

With Oklahoma obviously anything is possible. But remember, they're anti-gay, or against any deviation from having sex with sheep. And no mouth raping sheep either. They don't go for that. Humans - it's okay. Sheep, not okay.

I get what you're saying. I don't know how it would be resolved if an open stall is involved. :shrug: I guess a law would be enacted to force public type establishments to build stalls??? More government intrusion is the only way to deal with it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom