Virginia Bill Would Criminalize Oral Sex Between Teenagers

Garrett - CroppedVirginia Republicans are certainly dedicated to outlawing sex. First, former (thankfully) Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli expressed his desire to bring back sodomy laws, despite the Supreme Court striking those laws down, because being gay “doesn’t comport with natural law.” Now state Sen. Thomas Garrett has introduced a bill that would make oral and anal sex between teenagers a felony.

In the charming terminology of Garrett’s proposed measure, the law would apply to anyone who “carnally knows any male or female person by the anus or by or with the mouth, or voluntarily submits to such carnal knowledge.” It explicitly exempts adults having sex in private, but in doing so makes it clear the law applies to anyone who is not an adult, i.e., teenagers 17 and younger.

Of course, the proposal is riddled with ridiculous inconsistencies. two 17-year-old boy and a 17-year-old girl can get married in Virginia but they would be felons if they had something other than vaginal sex, which is not criminalized. An adult who engages in “genital sex” with a 15- to 17-year-old is currently subject to a misdemeanor offense. It’s clearly the “by the anus or by the mouth” part that makes Garrett want to bring back the Scarlet Letter.

Garrett tried to justify his bill by saying he is ‘trying to protect Virginia children from child predators.” If that was his impetus, however, he could have chosen to introduce a bill about child abuse instead.

And it wouldn’t be complete if Garrett didn’t complain that he’s the victim here. “Our office has been inundated with extremely unsavory telephone calls and emails,” Garrett said. Not nearly as unsavory as the bill itself, we suspect.

Photo credit: Virginia Senate Republican Caucus

Get Queerty Daily

Subscribe to Queerty for a daily dose of #politics #kencuccinelli #republicans stories and more


  • Rad

    I think I found the sequel to “Footloose”…

  • hyhybt

    As worded, that would outlaw even kissing.

  • hyhybt

    Given the outcome of their gubernatorial election, the chance that this will become law is thankfully insignificant.

  • LubbockGayMale

    We are entering what Robert Heinlein called ‘The Crazy Years’ in his predicted future writings! And it’s crazier than anything he imagined!

  • LandStander

    Sorry, but what is the difference between an anti-sodomy law, and a law outlawing oral and anal sex..? Isn’t that -exactly- what sodomy is?

  • hyhybt

    @LandStander: It is, in that sense. But the Lawrence ruling only invalidates laws prohibiting sodomy between consenting adults.

  • D9W

    My bet this one is a big closet queen just waiting for someone to drag herself out of the big screaming closet. Any Takers?

  • SteveDenver

    Oh Republicans, your obsessions are showing again.

  • Chris-MI

    So this is a law that primarily applies to pimply straight kids who don’t feel ready for the risks and stigmas associated with vaginal sex? Would he prefer his daughter say “I’d rather go all the way because oral is illegal?”

  • D9W

    So does this mean Santorum will be out lawed in W Virginia? After all he’s frothy…

  • Billysees


    How true. Conservatism is so strange.

  • Billysees


    You make a good point.

  • Kangol

    These Republicans are so sex-phobic, on top of pushing ignorance and fear. What is WRONG with them?

  • abbiistabbii

    The point of this law is not only to outlaw gay sex for under 18s, it’s also to make it more likely that these teens will get pregnant. Abstinence only Education that makes teen pregnancy rates worse, restrictions on Contraceptives, allowing pharmacists to refuse teenagers emergency contraception on “Moral” grounds. They want teen pregnancies to increase, and they will not do anything to help these teenage parents financially or socially in any way.

    Why? Because they want wage slaves. Think about it, a couple in their late 20s are MUCH more financially stable, they’re educated, out of college, and are earning MUCH more than they were in their teens, they’re capable financially of raising a child. A teenager on the other hand at most has a high school education, but if this is targeting under 18s I doubt it, don’t have much money of their own. If they have a child, and the state refuse to help them, they will have to get a job, a low paid one at that because of their lack of qualifications, and work for long hours to pay for the costs of raising a child. They can’t advance much in their careers because they can’t afford college, nor could they do college due to childcare issues. So you have someone stuck working long hours for low pay for the rest of their life, making a poor family. Then, once the child in question is of age, they’ll have to go into work for low pay just like their parents to keep their family finances in check. Ladies and Gentlemen, you have two generations of cheap labour.

    They know mass abstinence is not going to work, not merely because of past figures but because of sheer common sense. They know teenagers are going to fuck, your teens are the point where your sex drive is highest, what they want to do is get these teenagers to have kids for the benefit of businesses. To them, a poor family is a profitable family.

    This, Ladies and Gents, is all shades of wrong.

Comments are closed.