# Is It Illegal For Military Personnel To Give Or Receive Oral Sex? **URL:** \ **Category:** Factual Questions\ **Created:** [May 9, 2005, 2:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-it-illegal-for-military-personnel-to-give-or-receive-oral-sex/303060 "2005-05-09T14:50:53Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 16\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![Billdo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/billdo/32/315_2.png) [@Billdo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Billdo)\ **Post date:** [May 9, 2005, 9:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-it-illegal-for-military-personnel-to-give-or-receive-oral-sex/303060/21 "2005-05-09T21:21:11Z")
> [@Colibri](#): > > It would seem that the cases cited by **Billdo** the real offense was a sexual relationship, not sodomy _per se_. Wouldn’t such cases also have been prosecuted if penile-vaginal intercourse had taken place instead, given the circumstances? Actually, in both cases the initial charges included allegations of both forcible and non-forcible sodomy, in addition to other charges. In _Marcum_, the allegations as to the non-forcible sodomy conviction were that after a night of drinking the complaintant had crashed at the apartment of the accused, the NCO in charge of his unit. The complaintant testified that he awoke and found that the accused was performing oral sex on him. (Incidentially, both the accused and the complaintant were men in this case, though the court did not explicitly include that as a factor in its legal reasoning.) As to that incident, the court martial found that the accused had not engaged in forcible sodomy, but only in non-forcible sodomy because of other evidence regarding the pair’s personal relationship. (Apparently the accused was also convicted of forcible sodomy for another incident in the same case.) In _Stirewalt_, the accused was originally convicted “a number of offenses involving his female shipmates,” those being “four specifications of maltreatment by sexual harassment, one specification of rape, one specification of forcible sodomy, three specifications of assault consummated by a battery, four specifications of adultery and four specifications of indecent assault.” The military judge threw out some of the charges, and the remainder were thrown out on appeal, where a new trial was ordered. Before the retrial, the accused pleaded guilty to non-forcible sodomy. In these cases, it seems that non-forcible sodomy was a lesser included offense to a forcible sodomy charge (and incidentally, both initial convictions were pre-_Lawrence_, with the constitutionality of the non-forcible sodomy conviction only being raised on appeal). I don’t know how much, if at all, the military would prosecute true non-forcible sodomy, with no other confounding factors. ---
**Author:** ![CynicalGabe](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/3e96dc/32.png) [@CynicalGabe](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CynicalGabe)\ **Post date:** [May 9, 2005, 10:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-it-illegal-for-military-personnel-to-give-or-receive-oral-sex/303060/22 "2005-05-09T22:46:01Z")
> [@Paul in Saudi](#): > > The state of Virginia charged a heterosexual couple with sodomy of the oral sex variety a coupe of years ago. (Sorry no cite.) > > Why the heck would a Supreme Court ruling not apply to the UCMJ just as it would to all other bodies of American law? I’m glad a state such as Virginia has no _real_ crimes to spend taxpayers’ money prosecuting. ---
**Author:** ![Mr.Moto](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/9de0a6/32.png) [@Mr.Moto](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mr.Moto)\ **Post date:** [May 10, 2005, 2:49am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-it-illegal-for-military-personnel-to-give-or-receive-oral-sex/303060/23 "2005-05-10T02:49:14Z")
> [@RickJay](#): > > You are in effect saying that the UCMJ is essentially meaningless, and that the U.S. armed services punishes people for whatever they want. No. The UCMJ is not meaningless, and it’s not done on a whim. Not surprisingly, there are other guidelines that must be followed. Prosecution under the UCMJ is done under procedures set forth by the [Manual for Courts Martial.](http://usmilitary.about.com/library/pdf/mcm2000.pdf). And it states that lesser offenses may be prosecuted at the same time as a sodomy charge if that offense was committed. Now, the interesting thing is that a few of those charges include assault with intent to commit sodomy, indecent acts with a child under 16, indecent assault, or indecent acts with another - all of which are offenses that fall under Article 134, the General Article. So the General Article is really only general within the UCMJ. In practice, it is broken down into discrete charges that are all handled a little bit differently. It is useful for the UCMJ to be a smaller, more compact document. The MCM is 800 pages long, the important articles of the UCMJ are routinely posted in poster form for servicemembers to familiarize themselves with. In much the same way, most people are familiar with broad constitutional principles while not needing to know about the vast amount of case law available. ---
**Author:** ![Balthisar](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/balthisar/32/2825_2.png) [@Balthisar](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Balthisar)\ **Post date:** [May 10, 2005, 4:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-it-illegal-for-military-personnel-to-give-or-receive-oral-sex/303060/24 "2005-05-10T16:21:07Z")
> [@Mr. Moto](#): > > I saw guys restricted to the ship when I was in, reduced in paygrade, half their pay taken away for two months, sometimes given bread and water rations for up to three days. They were given extra duty for the restriction period. And all of this was without benefit of court martial - these were non-judicial punishments that could be imposed by the commanding officer for an infraction. > > This cannot be done to people outside of the military, simply put. Well, in a way it can. It’s kind of like a plea bargain. What you describe is non-judicial punishment under authority of Article 15 – simply called “an Article 15” or in the Navy (Marines, too?) a “Captain’s Mast.” _You have the right to court martial_. If you do something to merit an Article 15, you can refuse punishment under Article 15, i.e., excerise your Constitutional right to a trial. But… you’re probably going to get off a lot worse than half pay, bread and water, and reduction in rank. Even with a history of Article 15’s, you’ll still receive an Honorable discharge if you leave because of normal expiration of your term of service. ---
**Author:** ![Scruloose](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/e68b1a/32.png) [@Scruloose](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Scruloose)\ **Post date:** [May 10, 2005, 9:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-it-illegal-for-military-personnel-to-give-or-receive-oral-sex/303060/25 "2005-05-10T21:02:34Z")
> [@Balthisar](#): > > Well, in a way it can. It’s kind of like a plea bargain. What you describe is non-judicial punishment under authority of Article 15 – simply called “an Article 15” or in the Navy (Marines, too?) a “Captain’s Mast.” _You have the right to court martial_. Not sure of the other services, but in the Coast Guard this is not completely true. Members assigned to afloat units can not refuse NJP. Only members assigned to shore units have this option. If the CG does this, my guess is that the Navy does as well, but that’s just a guess as they usually have similiar policies. ---
**Author:** ![Chronos](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/chronos/32/134_2.png) [@Chronos](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chronos)\ **Post date:** [May 10, 2005, 10:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-it-illegal-for-military-personnel-to-give-or-receive-oral-sex/303060/26 "2005-05-10T22:21:13Z")
> [@](#): > > Members assigned to afloat units can not refuse NJP. Only members assigned to shore units have this option. At a guess, could this be because a Court Martial requires some minimum number of officers, and that on the small vessels operated by the Coast Guard, this minimum number of officers would not typically be available? If this is the case, then there would be no problem on, say, a Navy aircraft carrier with doing a court martial instead of NJP. ---
**Author:** ![Scruloose](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/e68b1a/32.png) [@Scruloose](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Scruloose)\ **Post date:** [May 10, 2005, 10:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-it-illegal-for-military-personnel-to-give-or-receive-oral-sex/303060/27 "2005-05-10T22:48:22Z")
I did a little checking now that my curiosity is up. From US Code: Title 10, Sub A, Part II, Chpt 47, § 815: Art. 15. Commanding officer’s non-judicial punishment > [@](#): > > (a) Under such regulations as the President may prescribe, and under such additional regulations as may be prescribed by the Secretary concerned, limitations may be placed on the powers granted by this article with respect to the kind and amount of punishment authorized, the categories of commanding officers and warrant officers exercising command authorized to exercise those powers, the applicability of this article to an accused who demands trial by court-martial, and the kinds of courts-martial to which the case may be referred upon such a demand. **However, except in the case of a member attached to or embarked in a vessel, punishment may not be imposed upon any member of the armed forces under this article if the member has, before the imposition of such punishment, demanded trial by court-martial in lieu of such punishment.** -snip- So, I guess it doesn’t matter what service you’re in. Larger ships may have the people, but probably lack the time, training and resources to effectively convene a proper court martial. For the serious offenses, they’ll just drop the offender off at the nearest brig and let “Harm” and “Mac” handle it. ---
**Author:** ![MsRobyn](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/90ced4/32.png) [@MsRobyn](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MsRobyn)\ **Post date:** [May 10, 2005, 11:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-it-illegal-for-military-personnel-to-give-or-receive-oral-sex/303060/28 "2005-05-10T23:27:31Z")
> [@Scruloose](#): > > Not sure of the other services, but in the Coast Guard this is not completely true. Members assigned to afloat units can not refuse NJP. Only members assigned to shore units have this option. If the CG does this, my guess is that the Navy does as well, but that’s just a guess as they usually have similiar policies. No. Navy personnel have an absolute right to court martial, no matter where they’re stationed. They’ll either bring JAGs to the ship, or the accused will be transferred to a shore command for prosecution. I’ve seen both happen, and yes, I am aware that “data” is not the plural of “anecdote”. One anecdote I will share involved two people in my unit. They were both brought to captain’s mast for oral sex. IIRC, it wasn’t the oral sex per se that was the charge, though; it was the fact that said encounter happened in a relatively public area of the ship, and thus, constituted a violation of good order and discipline. I think they each got 14 days restriction but no loss of rank or pay because the offense was so minor. Robin ---
**Author:** ![Bryan\_Ekers](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bryan_ekers/32/183_2.png) [@Bryan\_Ekers](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bryan_Ekers)\ **Post date:** [May 10, 2005, 11:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-it-illegal-for-military-personnel-to-give-or-receive-oral-sex/303060/29 "2005-05-10T23:59:01Z")
> [@Mr. Moto](#): > > Agreed. But I don’t see how this amounts to much of a difference on the ground. On the _ground_? Geez, get a room. ---
**Author:** ![Scruloose](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/e68b1a/32.png) [@Scruloose](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Scruloose)\ **Post date:** [May 11, 2005, 12:02am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-it-illegal-for-military-personnel-to-give-or-receive-oral-sex/303060/30 "2005-05-11T00:02:43Z")
> [@MsRobyn](#): > > No. Navy personnel have an absolute right to court martial, no matter where they’re stationed. This does not appear to be the case as I read it. The Article 15 cite I quoted above is from the UCMJ, and is not service specific. While vessel Commanding Officers _may_ allow a member to refuse NJP and put them ashore, the point remains, as I see it, that service members attached to or embarked in vessels have no right to court martial in lieu of NJP. To further that, I found this at a Navy JAG website: > [@](#): > > Article 15, UCMJ, And Regulations. > > NJP is permitted by Article 15, UCMJ (Section 815 of Title 10, United States Code) and is governed by Part V of the Manual for Courts-Martial and by service regulations. Prior to imposition of NJP, a service member must first be notified by the commander of the nature of the misconduct of which he or she is accused, of the evidence supporting the accusation, and of the commander’s intent to impose NJP. The member may then be allowed to consult with a defense counsel to determine whether to consent to a NJP proceeding, or to refuse NJP and demand instead a trial by court-martial. **The major difference among the services with regard to NJP is that service members attached to or embarked in a vessel may not refuse imposition of NJP.** From here:[http://www.jag.navy.mil/html/NLSOGlakesNonjudicial\_punishment.htm](http://www.jag.navy.mil/html/NLSOGlakesNonjudicial_punishment.htm) UCMJ: [http://straylight.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode10/usc\_sup\_01\_10\_10\_A\_20\_II\_30\_47.html](http://straylight.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode10/usc_sup_01_10_10_A_20_II_30_47.html) ---
**Author:** ![Padeye](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/a9a28c/32.png) [@Padeye](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Padeye)\ **Post date:** [May 11, 2005, 1:53am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-it-illegal-for-military-personnel-to-give-or-receive-oral-sex/303060/31 "2005-05-11T01:53:42Z")
Is there a universal definition of sodomy? Arizona’s sodomy law which was taken off the books by the legislature defined it as non-procreative sex which covers an awful lot of territory. All kidding aside “unnatural act” is an incredibly vague term that probably wouldn’t withstand a judicial review in the civilain world. I never gave article 125 much thought when I was in the military as no one was ever charged for going into town for some fun. The running joke was that a true friend was one who went to town, got two BJs and gave you one of them. ---
**Author:** ![Otto](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/bbe5ce/32.png) [@Otto](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Otto)\ **Post date:** [May 11, 2005, 2:17am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-it-illegal-for-military-personnel-to-give-or-receive-oral-sex/303060/32 "2005-05-11T02:17:50Z")
> [@MsRobyn](#): > > They were both brought to captain’s mast for oral sex. Bowm-chicka-_bowm_-bowm! ---
**Author:** ![rfgdxm](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/c0e974/32.png) [@rfgdxm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/rfgdxm)\ **Post date:** [May 11, 2005, 3:01am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-it-illegal-for-military-personnel-to-give-or-receive-oral-sex/303060/33 "2005-05-11T03:01:50Z")
> [@Balthisar](#): > > Well, in a way it can. It’s kind of like a plea bargain. What you describe is non-judicial punishment under authority of Article 15 – simply called “an Article 15” or in the Navy (Marines, too?) a “Captain’s Mast.” _You have the right to court martial_. If you do something to merit an Article 15, you can refuse punishment under Article 15, i.e., excerise your Constitutional right to a trial. But… you’re probably going to get off a lot worse than half pay, bread and water, and reduction in rank. Even with a history of Article 15’s, you’ll still receive an Honorable discharge if you leave because of normal expiration of your term of service. My understanding from someone fairly knowlegdeable in the military is a NJP is a sort of plea bargain. Under ordinary circumstances (the others possibly mentioned here would exceptions), the military can offer a NJP, or force a court-martial. Unless you are innocent and know you can win a court-martial, the NJP will be preferable. Lots bad can happen if you lose a court-martial. Like military prison, and a Dishonorable Discharge. With a DD, you lose not only military benefits, but also will have a BIG black mark against you seeking civilian employment. Far better to take the NJP, and then if disgusted with the military just resign. Resignation tends to be easy in the military except in cases of war or imminent hostility. The military would much rather replace you with an eager new recruit than keep you around as a malcontent with a history of bad behavior. If the military accepts your resignation, then you’ll get something better than a DD. Only a DD is associated with dishonor. The other discharges are either neutral, and in the case of an Honorable Discharge, a badge of honor. And to the extent that the military may be able to force a NJP, if they do it is probably a blessing. This guarantees that you won’t get a DD, and almost certainly means you will have the unilateral option of getting an OK discharge or a HD if you push the issue. (Although the latter could possibibly not be an option in the event of hostilities.) ---
**Author:** ![rfgdxm](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/c0e974/32.png) [@rfgdxm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/rfgdxm)\ **Post date:** [May 11, 2005, 3:13am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-it-illegal-for-military-personnel-to-give-or-receive-oral-sex/303060/34 "2005-05-11T03:13:56Z")
> [@Padeye](#): > > Is there a universal definition of sodomy? Arizona’s sodomy law which was taken off the books by the legislature defined it as non-procreative sex which covers an awful lot of territory. All kidding aside “unnatural act” is an incredibly vague term that probably wouldn’t withstand a judicial review in the civilain world. > > I never gave article 125 much thought when I was in the military as no one was ever charged for going into town for some fun. The running joke was that a true friend was one who went to town, got two BJs and gave you one of them. There is no universal definition of sodomy. A point I brought up earlier. I can’t imagine if I were in the military and demanded a court-martial if my girlfriend voluntarily gave me oral sex I’d be convicted. Have you ever known people in the military? If in the barracks I told of how my girlfriend gave me a blow job I’d probably get a slap on the back from fellow soldiers. Anything less and they’d probably look at me wondering if I was straight? Any sort of sexual action with chicks isn’t something to be ashamed of in the military. ---
**Author:** ![Billdo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/billdo/32/315_2.png) [@Billdo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Billdo)\ **Post date:** [May 11, 2005, 12:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-it-illegal-for-military-personnel-to-give-or-receive-oral-sex/303060/35 "2005-05-11T12:55:19Z")
> [@Padeye](#): > > Is there a universal definition of sodomy? Arizona’s sodomy law which was taken off the books by the legislature defined it as non-procreative sex which covers an awful lot of territory. All kidding aside “unnatural act” is an incredibly vague term that probably wouldn’t withstand a judicial review in the civilain world. > > I never gave article 125 much thought when I was in the military as no one was ever charged for going into town for some fun. The running joke was that a true friend was one who went to town, got two BJs and gave you one of them. UCMJ Art. 125 defines Sodomy as “unnatural carnal copulation” with a person or an animal. The Manual for Courts Martial [(link to 867 page PDF from Mr. Moto)](http://usmilitary.about.com/library/pdf/mcm2000.pdf) explains: > [@](#): > > It is unnatural carnal copulation for a person to take into that person’s mouth or anus the sexual organ of another person or of an animal; or to place that person’s sexual organ in the mouth or anus of another person or of an animal; or to have carnal copulation in any opening of the body, except the sexual parts, with another person; or to have carnal copulation with an animal. Although there is no “unversal” definition of sodomy in a linguistic sense, the legal definition of sodomy at common law included taking another person’s sexual organ into one’s mouth or anus or placing one’s sexual organ in another’s mouth or anus. ---
**Author:** ![plnnr](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/7ea924/32.png) [@plnnr](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/plnnr)\ **Post date:** [May 11, 2005, 2:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-it-illegal-for-military-personnel-to-give-or-receive-oral-sex/303060/36 "2005-05-11T14:57:09Z")
Illegal or not, some of the best head I ever got was from a Navy SEAL. So there. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-it-illegal-for-military-personnel-to-give-or-receive-oral-sex/303060.md?page=1)