preserve that for further review so focusing specifically on the oregon revised statutes argument is that without consent does not mean without force in looking at the guideline for  riley we were addressing the concern that all nine consensual sex cases the risk of harm even though there may not be any particular  any evidence that you know forced beyond that required for penetration is sufficient i'm referring to the sexually transmitted diseases risk of pregnancy and it seems to me to that that if that is the distinguishing feature here then virtually offender more severely because of the risk of then what difference does it well i think it makes a difference because that's when the guidelines are written a certain way they're written for different question that the text of the guidelines pacifically include the language about harm if what we're really talking about here are generic sexual offenses under both religion well i don't  definition of rape it's abuse under the oregon statute there is definite there are rate which is the kind of the first category and i understand i understand so if you've got forcible compulsion you're going to get you're going to get a and i think that's fast that's why i say there's a difference between without consent and without with with force versus without consent i think i'd better save the rest of my t would appear to be of difference and i guess when my colleague talks about that there could not be consent because of a person being intoxicated the government's position is that would be even different so actually they're not very persuasive anyway injury as and here and this particular and that's beyond just the mere penetration like the right only that would be my interpretation of riley as well at that i did not articulate very well yes so that is where we're at with riley with an adult without her consent that's an excerpt of record number one there also is the court had before the fact that defendants had been notified to register as a sex offender  physical act of penetration correction on it but riley goes beyond that there's another type of force that is inherent in forcible sex offense is the phrase that appears and that is the risk of sexually that you know and i would say that that's why i wasn't there when the court brings up things like s t v's or pregnancy that that's a potential risk that's out there but that's not actually in fact a risk or an element of inherent in the act because i think cause the person might suddenly come to well that's assuming i suppose that the consent or the lack thereof is from intoxication and there is some sort of overcoming of a will or something if you look at a situation for example of someone that perhaps has a follow eighty i q there is incapable of legal consent in that kind of arena or their age or something like that makes me just getting out  the never never land right and that's why i think under taylor and sheppard we don't go there we look at what the statute says and we look at the papers under the modified categorical approach that but the peepers don't really help us very much to know that they don't  involved in any non consensual sex i mean not an engineer the first are so the question is what's the difference between that level force