In Oklahoma sodomy (including oral) is against the law. Are adults who practice it therefore sex offenders?
928989
Yes, the law is the law. Unless the law has already been declared unconstitutional by the Supreme Court.\n\nIntimate sexaul relationships between consenting adults cannot be made criminal conduct. US Supreme Court. Lawrence v. Texas (2003). See link below for the full text of the opinion.\n\nSo, Oklahoma may still have sodomy laws on the books. But they are unconstitutional as applied to consenting adults, and thus cannot be enforced.
326502
Most of the answerers consider this funny but this is actually a serious issue.\n\nYES it is a sex offense in all states. If convicted you will be permanently branded a sex offender and be required to register as one wherever you live. It will limit your ability to get a job etc.\n\nThe public display of genitalia is considered to be lewd, obscene, and lascivious behavior and falls within the sex crime definition under the law of most states regardless of intent. Courts are rarely lenient. BTW that also applies to public streaking.\n\nThe catch is that someone must see you do it to be a public display under the law and file a complaint. \n\nIf you find yourself in a publicly accessible place near people and desperate to take a leak where someone might see, consider just wetting your pants. Embarrasing as it may be you can't be arrested as a sex offender for doing it as long as you don't whip it out afterwards and shake off the drops.
387140
You don't unless someone asks. If you bring it up, it will sound like you are "Protesting too much"\nIf you're antsy to get the air cleared, bring up a relevant news story and use that as a reason to express your views on the issue.\nBut when you say "Sex Offender" I hope you mean child molesters and actual predators, not the poor high school senior dating a sophmore,the 19 year old schmuck who lost his head over girl 2 months from the age of consent or the guy who got in a world of trouble over some experienced little hottie who lied about her age, it happens more than you might think that the only thing a guy did wrong was not ask for identification or make the mistake of turning 18 before his high school sweetheart turned 16. And then there is the married couple who gets nailed for "Lewd and Lascivious Conduct" because they were busted by a park ranger fooling around on a camping trip, 8 miles in, and a mile off the trail....in Texas, a person can be charged with a sexual offense for purchasing or owning certain, commonplace "adult toys"\nAll molesters, predators and actual rapists are sex offenders, but not all sex offenders are monsters... you gotta look at the actual crime, not the label.
386778
I'm pretty sure it varies by state. It may also vary depending on the duration and severity of the crime. Which is not to say that any sexual offense is less harmful than another, but that is just the way the law works.
29772
The only way it could be considered a mental disorder is if it were forced on somebody. In a consentual relationship between adults there is nothing wrong with spanking. In fact spanking is fairly tame compared to some fantasies. People who are enjoy spanking and other fantasies generaly confine the activities to the bedroom. Outside the bedroom they're just normal average people like everyone else. BTW spanking is more common than you think.\n\nCindy you don't find your "control" comment a bit hypocritical? I mean you say people who spank are control freaks while you define moral standards in other peoples bedrooms. If its a crime like pedophilia or rape then I'm with you, mandatory death penalty. Spanking isn't a crime though.
1031212
Oddly enough "crime against nature" isn't explicitly defined by state law in North Carolina. According to precedent, it is basically any form of intercourse other than vaginal, including beastiality, anal sex, fellatio, and cunnilingus. I imagine the sollicit part is clear.
900126
The first few posters don't have a clue as to what they're talking about - strictly speaking from the emotions rather than from logic. Because California has been registering sex offenders since 1947 and Megan's List goes back to 1944, the felony sex offenders who did molest children did their offenses WAY back (like 40 years ago) and we don't think it proper to put someone in state prison for life for child molesting (25 years, but not life). And since California has something like 107 different offenses that qualify someone for a sex offender in this state, many of these are felony sex offenders, but the majority are not child molesters.\n\nI wonder when society is going to realize that a sex offender is an offender but not necessarily a child molester or child rapist. \n\nAlso some of you stated that they should clear out the petty thieves and place the sex offenders back into prison. Ever hear of the U.S. Constitution and Bill of Rights? Ex post facto? Do these concepts ring a bell with anyone?  Once you have paid the consequences at the time of sentencing, the government cannot re-arrest you to pay additional consequences for the same offense. \n\nI seriously doubt if the GPS requirement will go through. The state currently has 1,000 high risk sex offendes on GPS. This initiative is talking about placing 80,000 anklets on felony sex offenders. The cost is astronomical and seriously limited technologically. The California Department of Corrections has a hard enough time handling the 1,000. Multiply that by 80 and it's nearly impossible.  \n\nTwo other considerations - the state has not had an epidemic of sexual offending by strangers, never has. Most of these stranger danger cases have happened in other states and opportunistic politicians (Sharon and George Runner, sponsors of 83) have taken advantage of the public hysteria. We do have interfamilial child sex abuse cases, as do all states. Yet GPS will not work within homes. Expensive and useless technology.\n\nThe other consideration - the politicians who were up for reelection wanted 83, the public wants it, but the experts who deal with the problem day in and day out (parole agents, the California Coalition on Sex Offending, CALCASA (84 sexual assault advocacy centers), and many, many others thought it was a red herring. \n\nIt's hardly a liberal judge thing letting people out of prison. If anything, California is a punitive state when it comes to criminal justice system. But our prisons are extremely overcrowded. We just went on a prison building spree to build spaces for 100,000 prisoners in the past 20 years; we now have 173,000 in state prison alone. The feds have threatened to take it over. This propsotion will just add to the problem and may be the tipping point to a federal take over. \n\nYou reap what you sow. California has been in a get tough on crime for a long time, but the taxpayers don't want to pay the bill. something's got to give.
878882
Do you mean having sex with minors or minors having sex with each other?\n\nIf it involves a hot woman and a male minor then its good \nIf its a guy and a girl minor than it bad\n\nIf its two minors together than the laws should be less harsh than they are now\n\nA good example would be when a hot teacher get in jail for doing it with a male student. For what? Making him one of the luckiest guys alive?
1032487
uh about all of them .to the answer about them being real hard on them watch out Georgia is sending them YOUR way! the laws r so tuff it is forcing them to be homeless(how do u find them?) or move somewhere there is No kids (which is where?) or move OUT OF STATE. sex offender does not mean petafile .that is what they need to do -redefine sex offender . i am not scared of the now 20 something girl or boy who had consentual sex w/ a minor when they were in highschool.how can some one find aplace to live in 2 wks? much less not near a bus stop or school or church daycare -i say keep the PETAFILES  in prison then this wouldnt be up 4 discussion. oh by the way if you ever in your life had sex w/ someone under 18-you are a sex offender,so dont be afraid to ask 4 I D
56316
The Supreme Court overturned laws against sodomy in Lawrence v. Texas.\n\nEdit: You are quite correct that there are still countries that ban sodomy. In such places, homosexuals cannot have sex and be law-abiding, particularly if the country bans any kind of homosexual sex act. They could theoretically avoid prosecution by keeping it private, however.
979620
You miss a point in that norms have changed since the time of Oscar Wilde; homosexul sex is no longer an offence, and neither is anal sex between heterosexuals.  As sexual deviancy is presumably not defined under statute - I'd love to see the draftsman try - it will be left to the man on the clapham omnibus, or as he is now referred to the reasonable person.  Given that society has shifted in its outlook, the judiciary must do the same.  \n\nFurthermore, the church, state and juduciary are necessarily kept separate so that one does not overly influence the other - look at laws which the Government has brought in, only for the Judiciary to define in its own way as soon as its given the chance.  The only person who straddles the state and juduciary is the Lord Chancellor, a political appt to the Judiciary.\n\nTo say that no - one has ever been cured of a menal heath problem is incorrect and sensationalist.  The issue here is whether sexual deviancy is a mental health issue - this depends on the sexual behaviour, and an examination of the individual to discover the reasons for that behaviour. \n\nMental health professionals take their job seriously, there is little chance of infiltration by Opus Dei, the KKK, the Keystone Cops or any other body you care to mention.  \n\nAs to your question, the norm is whatever society decides it is at the time.  Who is society?  We are - the reasonable person in the street, the imaginary person the law considers when trying a case.
795725
First of all try to realize there are many more sex offenders who have never been caught and are not registered. You may live near or work with one and not even know it. Try not to become a vigilante in your frenzy to protect children.\n\nA registered offender can be designated as habitual or non-habitual, and aggravated or non-aggravated. Perhaps this is what that listing is referring to.\n\nDepending on the state you live in, being registered does not necessarily mean they cannot be with children, especially if they have finished their probation. Mostly it limits how close to a school they can live based on their offense.\n\nIf you go out of your way to make life more difficult (than it already is) for this person, it will only increase his chances of re-offending.
95486
As a Catholic, it is forbidden. I chose to be a Catholic, so I'm going to obey its laws. Religious reasons aside, sex IS NOT MEANT TO BE A CONTACT SPORT, solely to satisfy sexual urges.This is my opinion only , and I'm sure that there are a lot who are frowning upon my answer to this question.
1123712
Interesting.  We don't register drug offenders, or drunk drivers, and jail times for each are far less, yet each kill and harm far more children than sex offenders. And there are many many more of each.  And yet...where is the press?  SEX of course.\n\nAddicts and alcoholics will be first to tell you they will ALWAYS be alcoholics or addicts.  Professionals who treat sex offenders will tell you that only 15% of offenders will ever reoffend...and that those MOST LIKELY to reoffend are pedophile homosexuals.  Our society, to the laughter and frankly, embarassment of the rest of the world, is OBSESSED with sex.  Sex offenders have become the "Witch Burnings" of our time.
272355
Sodomy, by itself, is not a crime. Forced sodomy or sodomy of a minor is usually a felony. I would say you have zero chance of community serive.
823071
rape isn't about sex, it's about power, control, and the thrill of victimization. sex offenders cannot be rehabilitated. and certainly not by the use of chemical castration w/o also combining medications that extinguish the sexual urges...there are many ways to rape and sexually offend other than using a penis.
104400
Yes, there is a law against this. In California, the crime is called "unlawful sexual intercourse".  Note that it does NOT matter if both are minors, and this crime IS being actively prosecuted in California due to the high rate of births to teenage mothers.\n\nPer California State Penal Code Section 261-269:\n\n261.5 ...\n\n (c) Any person who engages in an act of unlawful sexual intercourse with a minor who is more than three years younger than the perpetrator is guilty of either a misdemeanor or a felony, and shall be punished by imprisonment in a county jail not exceeding one year, or by imprisonment in the state prison.