Oral Sex And Federal Law: What's The Verdict?

Oral sex is generally legal when performed in private between consenting adults. However, it can be a criminal offense when done without consent, with a minor, or in public. While some US states have anti-sodomy laws that ban oral sex, these laws are unenforceable due to a 2003 Supreme Court ruling in Lawrence v. Texas, which deemed such laws unconstitutional. This ruling overturned all laws criminalizing sex between consenting adults in private, though some states have yet to remove these laws from their legislative records.

Is oral sex illegal in some US states?

Oral sex is not explicitly illegal in any US state. However, some states have anti-sodomy laws that prohibit non-procreative sexual acts, which could include oral sex. These laws are unenforceable due to a 2003 Supreme Court ruling in Lawrence v. Texas, which declared that anti-sodomy laws are unconstitutional.

Nevertheless, oral sex can be considered illegal in certain circumstances, such as when it is non-consensual, involves a minor, or is performed in public. These acts may fall under different criminal codes depending on the state, such as sexual misconduct or public indecency.

As of 2023, the following 12 states have statutes criminalizing consensual sodomy, which could include oral sex: Florida, Georgia, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Massachusetts, Michigan, Mississippi, North Carolina, Oklahoma, South Carolina, and Texas. However, these statutes cannot be enforced due to the binding precedent set by Lawrence v. Texas.

It is important to note that the legal landscape regarding sodomy and oral sex may change if the Supreme Court overturns Lawrence v. Texas, as suggested by Justice Clarence Thomas in his concurring opinion in the overturning of Roe v. Wade.

What is the legal definition of oral sex?

The legal definition of oral sex varies slightly depending on the state in the US. However, in general, oral sex is defined as any sexual contact between a person's mouth and another person's genitals or anus. This includes cunnilingus, fellatio, and anilingus.

In the state of California, oral sex is referred to as "oral copulation" and is defined as contact, no matter how slight, between the mouth of one person and the sexual organ or anus of another. This definition specifically includes any sexual intercourse involving the mouth.

While some states in the US have laws banning oral sex, these laws are unenforceable due to a 2003 Supreme Court ruling in Lawrence v. Texas, which declared that Texas's anti-sodomy law was unconstitutional. The court ruled that the state cannot "demean [people's] existence or control their destiny by making their private sexual conduct a crime" if it involves consenting adults.

Therefore, oral sex is legal when done in private among consenting adults. However, it can be a criminal offense when done without consent, with a minor, or in public. The age of consent varies depending on the state.

What are the penalties for breaking oral sex laws?

While oral sex laws vary from state to state in the United States, there are some general circumstances in which oral sex is considered a criminal offense. These include when the act is performed without consent, with a minor, or in public. The penalties for breaking these laws can range from misdemeanors to felony offenses, with consequences including fines, probation, or imprisonment.

For example, in California, a conviction for oral copulation through force or fear can result in 3, 6, or 8 years in state prison and/or up to $10,000 in fines. The sentence will be longer if force or fear was used in collaboration with another person, with the length depending on the age of the victim. If the victim was an adult, the sentence is 5, 7, or 9 years, while if the victim was a minor over 14, the sentence increases to 8, 10, or 12 years. If the victim was under 14, the sentence is 10, 12, or 14 years.

If the act of oral copulation involved a minor, the prison sentence will depend on the ages of those involved. If the victim was under 14 and the defendant was at least 10 years older, the sentence ranges from 3 to 8 years. If the victim was under 16 and the defendant was over 21, the sentence is 16 months to 3 years in state prison. If the victim was 16 or older or the defendant was 21 or younger, the offense may be charged as a misdemeanor or a felony, resulting in up to 1 year in county jail or 16 months to 3 years in state prison, respectively.

It is important to note that even if the minor involved in the sexual act is above the age of consent, there may still be legal consequences if there is a significant age difference between the minor and the adult. These "age of consent plus" laws vary by state and can have legal implications for adults engaging in sexual activity with minors.

In most cases, defendants convicted of oral copulation involving force or fear and/or a minor are also required to register as sex offenders.

If the oral copulation was between consenting adults but was performed in public, it can be charged as lewd conduct in public or indecent exposure, resulting in up to 6 months or 1 year in jail, respectively, in the state of California.

While the Supreme Court ruled in 2003 that anti-sodomy laws were unconstitutional, it is important to note that some states still have these laws on their books. However, these laws are unenforceable and cannot be enforced due to the Supreme Court's ruling.

What is the history of anti-sodomy laws in the US?

The history of anti-sodomy laws in the US dates back to the colonial era of the 17th century, when certain sexual acts were deemed illegal, illicit, unlawful, unnatural, and/or immoral. While these laws often targeted same-sex sexual activities, they also included broad definitions that outlawed some sexual acts between people of different sexes, and even between married couples.

In the 19th century, sodomy laws were broadly construed as "crimes against nature, committed with mankind or with beast." This typically involved the penetration of a "penis inside the rectum of an animal, a woman or girl, or another man or a boy." The purpose of these laws was to protect "public morals and decency" and to safeguard women, "weak men," and children against sexual assault. Court records from this time show that these laws were used to prosecute nonconsensual activity, while consenting adults engaging in sodomy within their homes were generally considered immune from prosecution.

In the 20th century, the nature and enforcement of sodomy laws changed significantly. The inclusion of oral sex in many of these laws expanded the group of potential violators, and the establishment of police forces in rapidly growing urban areas led to increased arrests and imprisonment for violations of these statutes. City and state governments responded to public outcry against indecency, sexual solicitation, and the predation and molestation of minors. During the 1950s, McCarthyism resulted in nationwide witch hunts of male "homosexuals," where acts of oral and anal sex between consenting adult men were conflated with child molestation.

Despite criticism from legal authorities and state commissions arguing for decriminalization, many states resisted proposed reforms, claiming that changes to sodomy laws promoted homosexuality and unnatural conduct. In 1955, the American Law Institute voted to decriminalize consensual sodomy, and the Model Penal Code (MPC) did not include such laws. By the mid-to-late 20th century, the gradual decriminalization of American sexuality law led to the elimination of anti-sodomy laws in most US states. Illinois became the first state to remove criminal penalties for consensual sodomy in 1962, and by 1971, 19 more states had followed suit.

In 1986, the US Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of sodomy laws in Bowers v. Hardwick. However, in 2003, the Supreme Court reversed this decision in Lawrence v. Texas, invalidating all sodomy laws in the remaining 14 states. This ruling struck down anti-sodomy laws across the US, including those prohibiting oral sex. As of 2023, 12 states still have statutes criminalizing consensual sodomy, but these laws are unenforceable due to the binding precedent set by Lawrence v. Texas.

What are the implications of anti-sodomy laws for LGBT+ people?

While anti-sodomy laws are rarely enforced, they have been used to target sexual activities between individuals of the same sex. In the United States, anti-sodomy laws have been rewritten to specifically target LGBTQ+ residents. These laws have been used to legitimize the sexual norms of a society and promote idealized norms. They have also been used as tools of oppression by the majority against members of minority groups.

The implications of anti-sodomy laws for LGBT+ people are significant and far-reaching. These laws have been used to justify discrimination and criminalize private, consensual sexual conduct between adults. They have also been enforced selectively, with gay men, lesbians, and bisexuals being targeted for prosecution. The continued existence of these laws, even if rarely enforced, provides a basis for justifying discrimination and denying LGBT+ people their rights.

Furthermore, anti-sodomy laws have been used to intrude into the private lives of LGBT+ individuals, dictating their most intimate and personal physical behavior. This has resulted in LGBT+ people being punished as criminals for their private sexual conduct. The laws have also been used to control the identity and destiny of LGBT+ individuals, demeaning their existence and limiting their freedom.

In addition to the direct legal consequences, anti-sodomy laws have had a broader impact on the acceptance of LGBT+ citizens in society. The existence of these laws, even if unenforceable, sends a message that LGBT+ people and their relationships are not worthy of respect and recognition. This can contribute to social stigma, discrimination, and violence against LGBT+ individuals.

Overall, the implications of anti-sodomy laws for LGBT+ people include criminalization of their private sexual conduct, denial of their rights, intrusion into their private lives, and stigmatization of their identities. These laws have been used to justify discrimination and promote social norms that are not inclusive of LGBT+ individuals.

Frequently asked questions