Talk About Sticking It in The Wrong Place

My blog is not rated PG-13, we discuss anything and everything here.

Court says oral sex law violates rights

SAN FRANCISCO (Reuters) - A 22-year-old Californian man who received oral sex from a sixteen-year-old girl should not be forced to register for life as a sex offender, the California Supreme Court ruled on Monday.

The state's top court found that California denied Vincent Hofsheier equal protection under the law because those having intercourse in such circumstances would not be forced to register as lifetime sex offenders.

Hofsheier appealed after being ordered to register his name on the list, which is shared with the public and carries significant stigma.

"Requiring mandatory lifetime registration of all persons who, like defendant here, were convicted of voluntary oral copulation with a minor of the age of 16 or 17, but not of someone convicted of voluntary sexual intercourse with a minor of the same age, violates the equal protection clauses of the federal and state Constitutions," the court ruled.

"We perceive no reason why the legislature would conclude that persons who are convicted of voluntary oral copulation with adolescents 16 to 17 years old...constitute a class of 'particularly incorrigible offenders'... who require lifetime surveillance as sex offenders."

Ok, here is the big question, or one of the big questions. Was this consensual? If it wasn't then they should throw the book at this guy a couple of times. However if it was, there is a whole 'nother thing to consider.

One of them is the age of consent. At what point are you old enough to decide what you want to do with your body.

Let's look at more of the story and see what we find:

"U.S. law on oral sex has evolved over the years, and it was not until 1975 that oral sex between consenting adults was decriminalized in California. Today, in 38 of the 50 U.S. states consensual sex with a 16- or 17-year old is legal.

In the case, Hofsheier pleaded guilty and received probation after meeting the teenager in an Internet chat room and sharing rum and orange juice with her at a beach."

I am not even to going to touch upon how ridiculous I think the anti-oral laws were/are. The second part of that first paragraph addresses the question of consent and that is critical.

It sounds to me like this was consensual and that makes a difference. But at the same time I have to wonder about a 22 year-old man who picks up a 16 year-old. Something is not quite right there.