The Court decision in Oklahoma stands as one of the incomprehensible decisions in modern times, namely that a man does not—I repeat: does not—commit a morally wrong act by engaging in vaginal oral sex with a woman who is so totally inebriated that she has essentially lost consciousness. Hmmm. This is one of the most incomprehensible rulings that I have ever heard about. For in the matter of sex, it is surely the case that the moral baseline is consent—and not whether a person is in some physical or even psychological way made worse off or not.
Now to be sure, there can be non-verbal consent. Indeed, it is very often the case that sexual intercourse with a person involves non-verbal consent. Leslie touches Tracy in a mild erotic manner; Tracy touches back in an erotic manner; and so things continue. But what is absolutely of the utmost importance here is the initial voluntary sexual touching is readily followed by voluntary sexual touching in return. So although there is no verbal consent, there is a considerable amount of reciprocal voluntary touching between the two individuals, with there being an increase in the sexuality of the touching.
The asinine decision of the Oklahoma completely utterly ignored the importance of mutual voluntary touching as a fundamental form of consent. But ignoring the importance of voluntary touching between two individuals is utterly asinine and morally inappropriate. Indeed, in the case of sex, ignoring the importance of voluntary touching is totally despicable. Voluntary touching between two individuals is correctly understood as a form of tacit approval. And it is correct that tacit approval is typically how the sex act between two individuals gets underway.
On the one hand, then, the Court would be right in ruling that words are not necessary for voluntary sex between two individuals. On the other hand, though, the Oklahoma Court is absolutely and unequivocally wrong in failing to take into account the significance of voluntary touching. And when there is no response on the part of Leslie to the voluntary touching of Tracy, then it is absolutely and unequivocally inappropriate for Tracy to perform a sex act upon Leslie. And in this regard, it is absolutely phenomenal just how little is needed in terms of a response. Suppose that Tracy touches Leslie’s upper-thigh. All that Leslie would need to do is touch Tracy’s hand in a warm manner; and that would suffice as a clear indication to Tracy that he can proceed in sexually engaging Leslie.
Alas, a person who is so inebriated that she or he is in effect unconscious simply does not have the psychological wherewithal to give consent. Alas, only a morally callous—indeed, a morally bankrupt—person would hold the view that if a person is utterly inebriated, then consent is unnecessary. It takes very little reflective thought in order to see that such a line of reasoning is utterly horrific.
Thus, the argument of this blog entry entails that Oklahoma judges who rendered the decision that it is alright to have oral sex with an unequivocally inebriated woman who is thereby unable to give consent have revealed themselves to be utterly callous morally speaking. Accordingly, they do not deserve to be a judge. It is my hope and prayer that the citizens of Oklahoma will rise up and demand the resignation of the judges who made such a morally despicable and horrific ruling.
With lots and lots of issues, there is room for disagreement between morally intelligent people of goodwill. From what counts as an adequate salary for this or that job to whether the death penalty is morally acceptable when certain forms of quite horrific wrongs have been committed, there can be disagreement between reasonable people. But with the ruling of the Court that a man may engage in oral sex with a woman who is unconscious on account of being utterly inebriated, there is absolutely no room for disagreement on the part of morally decent people. The Court’s ruling is absolutely and unequivocally morally indefensible. The indefensibility of the ruling is so obviously the case that the only reasonable conclusion to draw is that the ruling reveals a most horrific level of moral callousness on the part of the Court—so much so that it is manifestly obvious that the judges in question are unworthy of being judges. Conservatives and Liberals may join forces here, since the truth in question mightily transcends their differences.
© 2016 Laurence Thomas