Ffs

[Polidori]

www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/forced-oral-sex-where-victim-has-passed-out-drunk-is-ruled-not-illegal-by-oklahoma-court-a7004651.html

Complete failure to understand that rape is non consensual, not necessarily forced with brute strength, having appalling consequences here

Oklahoma has the death penulty. Not exactly a bastion for human rights.

penalty.

Well, true. But I'm not sure that this particular outrage can be swept aside simply with "oh, them! they do lots of terrible things".
I'm not suggesting you're trying to sweep it aside, Ophelia , and I agree with what you say about Oklahoma's laws.

Snopes Explanation of the ruling It is thoroughly messed up., forcing oral sodomy (as they term it) falls through the cracks for charges because she was too drunk for consent.

Surely being too drunk to consent, means no consent is given, means this is oral rape by penetration? or am I being thick?

Surely being too drunk to consent, means no consent is given, means this is oral rape by penetration? or am I being thick?

No, Gina Bambino , you're not being thick at all. The problem (one of the problems) is that many men still think that unless a woman actually says "no" she's fair game. Consent has to be given. If clear willing consent is not given freely then it is rape. It's the people failing to take this on board who are being thick.

Polidori - phew I thought I'd missed something then!
I don't like victim blamers either - people should be allowed to go out wearing what they want, get drunk if they want to and still know they will get home un-assaulted. It's ridiculous that rape cases are not convicted because of the outfit the victim was wearing or that they were drunk.
Too drunk to say yes or no - no consent!

Gina, this is a space between two laws. In Oklahoma, vaginal and anal rape if the victim is incapacitated are recognised. Because oral rape isn't put into that act, it's in another law about forcible sodomy which doesn't cite incapacity as one of the instances where "forcible" applies.

The law needs to be changed, fast.

Thanks Yonic for explaining, it's interesting to know that one type of offence is recognised and one isn't! You're right, the whole law needs looking at and changing. Hopefully it will be, but I doubt it will be done anytime soon

Yonic's assessment is correct.

Also I think it important for anyone tempted to jump on the let's-bash-the-entire-state-of-Oklahoma bandwagon, it was the state's attempt to prosecute this act that brought this anomaly to light.

Seneca could they have prosecuted it as a sexual assault? Oklahoma law must presumably recognise there are sexual offences short of rape- were they going for the more serious forcible sodomy charge rather than sexual assault ?

Lass, I'm not sure. There is a separate crime of sexual battery in Oklahoma, but I don't know how it is applied in actual practice. In my state, I am fairly sure that this act could be successfully prosecuted under several statutes.

The defence suggested that the prosecution/police should have elected to go for "unwanted touching" (with the implication that her client would have been found guilty of that!)

I guess it's like Clayton McDonald. He could have been charged with something other than rape, I suppose, for inviting Ched Evans to that room without consent of its naked inhabitant, but the CPS hoped the rape charge would be carried and went for that.

It does appear that they are working on fixing the problem fairly quickly.

www.cnn.com/2016/04/29/us/oklahoma-sodomy-laws-inebriation/