Unspeakable Legislation

Headline of the week: "House passes bill too gross to talk about."

Comments

[P Brooks]

I don't know which is worse; the idea that somebody would actually do this, or that the state legislators think they need to invent a special category of law to cover it.

Any retaliation, up to and including hatchet murder, should be immune from prosecution.

[Naga Sadow]

Gross! What the fuck is wrong with gang members? And more importantly . . . will this effect porn in some way?

[Warren]

OK that's disgusting. But you know what, every sexual act is disgusting. Consenting adults people. This is typical "doing something" legislation, making things into crimes that aren't crimes.

[Jaybird]

In an attempt to keep this thread work-safe, I'll just say that the particular, erm, "act" being legislated against originated in Japan... a country where morality rules were set up in such a way that mommy/daddy parts were not, in any way, allowed to be shown.

So they came up with stuff that was still, erm, capable of letting the viewer (probably male) "get the job done" without being able to rely on mommy/daddy parts.

So we get depictions of, erm, "acts" that are too gross to talk about. Why? Because the law doesn't allow for boring vanilla crap.

More meddling is not, in fact, the answer.

[Kyle Jordan]

I just mention my love for facials in another thread and then this shit comes up...

Yo, fuck Oregon!

*Props to X.

[SpongePaul]

well flining poop, semen, or urine is not an actual sexual assult. It is an assualt, but not in a sexual nature. It Monkies and other animals, including sea cucumbers engage in flining of various fluids. It is a primitive revenge/defense mechanism. Now, yes it has been willfully corrupted by man. But is say. it is not a sexual assualt as there is nothing inatly sexual about flinging fluids. If it does not involve sex or sex acts of some kind, then it is not a sexual offense.

[SugarFree]

It seems the throwing semen into someone's face would already be assault. It makes a strained sort of sense to make it a sex crime, but I doubt this would outlaw bukkake. It's all about consent. If you consent to getting come thrown in your face, then what's the problem?

[Nick]

Note to self. Don't buy Oregonian porn.

I'd be hit with the double whammy of not seeing bukake and then having to report my purchase to the State of NY for tax purposes.

But in all seriousness, wasn't assault the correct charge and if it was particularly egregious, sentencing would take care of that? Mandatory maximums or minimums for sentencing might be a problem, but inventing a new law does not solve the problem.

[Citizen Nothing]

Finally. A bukkake thread that's on topic. It's what H&R posters have been demanding for years.

[ed]

I don't recall seeing anything of the sort in Gangs Of New York. Thrown cleavers, yes.
It was a more civilized time.

[P Brooks]

Gangs of New York

Holy shit, that movie SUCKED!
I was laughing my ass off by the time it finally ended. Scorsese should be in a straitjacket.

[Naga Sadow]

Citizen Nothing,

I suppose. But in a strained way as it seems to pertain to the elderly and handicapped. Your time will come though.

[albanian]

I can do what ever I want! Except in Oregon.

[Audacity]

Given the language of the statute, I take it that spitting on someone is also now a second-degree felony.

[Abner MacGillicuddy]

This is one thread where RingTFA really would have helped at least 2/3 of the posters.

Legislative overreach, maybe.

But, if I was a woman minding my own business, shopping in Target with my young daughter, and some fucking savage, out of nowhere, suddenly emptied a jar of his mangoo on me you bet your fucking britches I'd be pissed.

And way fucking more than common fucking assault fucking pissed.

[Abner MacGillicuddy]

I could add, sexual assault just plays to the sexual puritanism that drives much legislation these days.

Rape is to be punished because it is violent and injurious to the victim not because it is icky and sinful. That is it is wrong because it is injurious not because it might lead to hell and damnation.

Likewise throwing any of the substances enumerated in this law is not sinful, in the go to hell sense, or sexual but it does contain a level of aggravation that goes beyond common assault.

[ChicagoTOm]

What the fuck is wrong with gang members? And more importantly . . . will this effect porn in some way?

The odd thing about it is that the law as written explicitly states that it is illegal when done "for the purpose of sexual gratification". It would seem to me then that a gang initiation of this sort wouldn't qualify as a sex crime.

The other thing I wonder is, could this be used to go target someone as a sex offender if the "victim" is a willing participant to sex with someone but doesn't agree to a facial or getting cum upon ?

[ChicagoTom]

Given the language of the statute, I take it that spitting on someone is also now a second-degree felony.

The law defines "dangerous substances" as " blood, urine feces, or semen"

Spitting at someone would probably be considered plain old assault.

[the innominate one]

Warren - RTFA

[Menstrual Retardation]

"I just mention my love for facials in another thread and then this shit comes up..."

You like getting facials? Gross!

[Bob A]

Peter North could not be reached for comment.

[Art-P.O.G.]

Holy shit, that movie SUCKED!

Actually, I thought Gangs of New York was amazing. Scorcese is a genius.

[Dello]

So much for the money shot....

[Abdul]

Given the language of the statute, I take it that spitting on someone is also now a second-degree felony.

The law defines "dangerous substances" as " blood, urine feces, or semen"

Oh, like you've never had any of those in your mouth. Likely story...

[ChicagoTom]

Oh, like you've never had any of those in your mouth. Likely story...

That's not it...it's just that I've never spit them out 🙂

[jtuf]

I understand why throwing a bodily fluid would result in a higher penalty than throwing water, because contact with a bodily fluid carries the risk of infection. However, I don't see any reason to single out semen and classify it as a sexual assult. Couldn't we just generalize laws against spitting on someone to include all bodily fluids and biohazards? New Jersey statues already separates throwing bodily fluids as a separate offense.

[Xeones]

...will this effect porn in some way?

Have you ever heard of this place called Japan?

[Danimal]

This being Oregon, though, maybe it's only a matter of time before this law is overturned because the act in question is protected expression under the Oregon Constitution.

Full-nude lapdancing is protected expression here. If this law prohibits even consensual fluid-tossing, the analogy isn't too difficult.

[will]

The law only applies to unwilling participants.

This isn't really a liberty issue, guys. Don't cum on old ladies in Target and you should be pretty free and clear.

[Danimal]

"A person commits the crime of sexual abuse in the second degree [when that] if the
person:
...
(b) For the purpose of arousing or gratifying the sexual desire of the person or another
person, intentionally propels any dangerous substance at a victim who does not consent
thereto."

That answers that.

[Mango Punch]

I'm surprised that the Powerful Oregon Clown Lobby isn't up in arms about this, the c^m spraying flower lapel is the oldest trick in the book.

[Abner MacGillicuddy]

Jessus Christ, I'm beginning to wonder if any of you RTFA.

[SpongePaul]

"A person commits the crime of sexual abuse in the second degree [when that] if the
person:
...
(b) For the purpose of arousing or gratifying the sexual desire of the person or another
person, intentionally propels any dangerous substance at a victim who does not consent
thereto."
_______________________________________
Great. the way the law is written it does not even address the problem they had at the start. It was gangs doing it as an initiation. there was no arousla or gratification inplied or resulting from. so.... they just made up a BS law for no good reason, as fluids are already covered under assualt!

[Abner MacGillicuddy]

Ah, someone RTFA.

I found the "arousing or gratifying" line confounding as well.

I have been under the impression for a long time that rape had less to do with sexual gratification than it did with the desire to use violence on and humiliate the victim. But I suppose some sickos find that sexually gratifying to.

But just pouring it out on someone in a public place, well maybe it's sexually gratifying but I can see some jerks just doing it for regular old kicks. Gues it takes all kinds.

Still, SpongePaul hits nail on head. This law does not cover the event described in TFA.

Some wise ass has probably already got a law named after him: When legislators meat to solve a problem they won't.

[This...]

when the bill hit the House floor

...is an analogous situation.

[The Sticky Slope]

The real threat to liberty of this law is that it paves the way for an unconstitutional ban on assault genitalia, arbitrarily defined as any "sexual organ capable of firing more than 10 rounds of ammunition before having to reload." Why isn't Reason brave enough to stick up for genital rights? Come on already! I thought this was supposed to be a libertine blog!