California Legislature Passes Bill Reducing Penalties for Oral, ####### Sex with Willing Children

[laylalex 7,300]

19 minutes ago, Lemonslice said:

How do you know?

And for that matter, it's still statutory rape so no penalties are actually reduced so ...? 

 

Pedophilia is not being legalized in ANY way, not completely or even in part. What is being done is making it more equal when it comes to discretion of a judge. Why should we treat P in V sex as somehow deserving of discretion when it comes to being put on the sex offenders list, but not when the sex is oral or A sex? If people have an issue with the entire concept, attack the existing law and say no discretion, ever, to anyone, no matter what the type of sex.

 

These are the important parts: (1) statutory rape is still a crime and this bill changes nothing about that; (2) it levels the playing field for judges to give discretion ONLY when it comes to who automatically gets put on the sex offenders list; (3) discretion is exactly what it says it is -- a judge will not automatically say, oh, 14 and 24, that's fine, no sex offenders list for you; and (4) it does not legalize pedophilia. 

 

I pay attention. I read the bill. I read the Penal Code. This is really, really clear and I can't even believe we're arguing about any of this. Bizarre.

[Burnt Reynolds 5,058]

The argument isn't statutory rape isn't a crime, that judges never had discretion, and that this entirely legalizes pedophilia, but I understand the need to try and redirect it to this and say one is paying attention when clearly trying not to. It's just as dishonest as those who in debates endlessly cited 19 and 17 year old gay couples while putting 10 years into this law when they didn't need to, could've handled this easily in an entirely different way, but that wasn't the point. Pre-Trump none of those people would've argued that a judge should have discretion over any 24 and 14 year old being punished and put on a sex offender registry regardless of the type of sex they had, they knew the message that would've been sent. The point is the message it sends to criminals, and should be looked at in the scope of other criminal "reductions" made recently in states and cities with a certain leaning, whether it be reducing penalties on attacking police, increasing the amount of theft needed for prosecution/police attending, defunding police in the middle of riots, eliminating bail allowing criminals accused of violent crimes e.g. rioting to immediately go free and commit more crimes (and they do), the message is loud and clear.. they support chaos and destruction, especially while the orange man is in the White House (the time frame those policies have escalated exponentially). Cities and states have already reaped immediate rewards of these policies, of which the populace is being simultaneously gaslighted and told that this is all peaceful. Worth reiterating, those conclusions don't hinge on the biggest caricatures those that disagree with them can come up with.

Edited September 4, 2020 by Burnt Reynolds

[Voice of Reason 10,298]

5 hours ago, laylalex said:

Yes, I KNOW California doesn't have a Romeo and Juliet law. You need to actually read what this law is about. It is NOT about statutory rape -- that is still a thing, and if you have sex with a person under 18, you have committed statutory rape. The bill is about the fact that judges are currently given discretion whether to add someone to the sex offenders' register where the age difference between the parties is 10 years or less AND the child is at least 14 years old, but only if the sex is vaginal (i.e. P in V). A judge currently does not have that discretion if the sex is oral or the word that gets ###'d out here but you know what it is. The bill is to remove the distinction. That's it. 

 

Let me repeat myself: IT IS STILL STATUTORY RAPE. Adults will be punished. The only difference is that a judge would have discretion NOT to add the adult to the sex offenders' list if the sex in question was oral or A sex. Why should a 18 year old caught having vaginal sex with his 17 year old girlfriend be able to appeal to the judge's discretion about being added to the list but the same 18 year old caught having oral sex with his 17 year old girlfriend not be able to do the same? 

 

And yes, it is WRONG for a 27 year old to have sex with a 17 year old in California because it is against the law, and awful because... wow, do I even need to say why it is wrong to have sex with a child? I don't care what adults do or what their age differentials are. Not my business. I prefer to have a partner who is close to my age, would you judge me for my preference? No? Good, I don't judge others for the same even if it's something I personally would not prefer.

 

Also, wherever people are reading that it is fine for an 18 year old to have sex with an 8 year old under this law... really, where are you even reading this that's a reliable source? I read SB145 just now in full, and it points to a number of Penal Code sections that when you put them together, say: sex with children under 14 is not only always wrong, you are going away for a long, long time. Read all the Penal Code sections from section 286 going forward. Non-forced oral and A sex get people into bigger trouble than P in V sex -- why? 

 

Can you point me to the part where it says anything about kids being 14-17 years old, because I could not find that.

 

About the only gain I see in this bill is that gays can have sex with someone 10 years younger than them (B or O) and potentially get away with it, just as with "normal" copulation of said age differences.

Edited September 5, 2020 by Voice of Reason

[laylalex 7,300]

59 minutes ago, Voice of Reason said:

Can you point me to the part where it says anything about kids being 14-17 years old, because I could not find that.

 

About the only gain I see in this bill is that gays can have sex with someone 10 years younger than them (B or O) and potentially get away with it, just as with "normal" copulation of said age differences.

I pointed you to the Penal Code sections already. You need to read the bill in connection with the sections and you will see it, it just takes putting it all together from all the various sections that cross-reference each other. It is really important imo to see that the definition of "sexual penetration" doesn't cover oral or A sex -- "sexual organs" don't count when it comes to penetration of the back passage (so dumb I cannot use the actual word), which is weird -- that's sodomy and it will put you on the register. But if you penetrate with a finger or [imagine whatever you like that isn't a sexual organ that can penetrate], the judge has discretion now if the child is at least 14 and the adult is no more than 10 years older. 

 

I will tell you you need to look at section 290 as it is currently written and how the bill would change it. The other sections are 286, 287 and 288. None of those sections are changed by the bill, only section 290 from the way I read it. 

 

The change doesn't just cover gay people. It covers people of all sexual orientations. You do not have to be gay to engage in oral or A sex, obviously. No one is potentially getting away with it -- statutory rape is statutory rape. This is only about whether an adult will be automatically added to the sex offenders register. 

 

I am sick of reading about this at this point and I think you can find me firmly in the camp that statutory rape is wrong, which isn't exactly a controversial place to argue from I think!   I am all for happy, healthy, consensual sex between adults of whatever age difference and whatever sexual persuasion. Except this kind of sex (crossover post -- Daily Mail update for Boiler): https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8678997/Woman-caught-husband-having-sex-mother-says-suspected-them.html

 

Edited September 5, 2020 by laylalex

[Voice of Reason 10,298]

CA law says that the age of consent is 18, period.  So anyone over 18 having sex with anyone under 18 is statutory rape, period.  If CA wants to have latitude on whether or not to require such people to register as sex offenders, so be it.  Just one more reason I am very happy to have left that sad state.  Suffice it to say, if any adult from ANY state (not just CA) tries to have sex with my minor daughter, the decision as to how to register said pedophile will never even become an issue.  

 

Also, you say it's not about gays, and yet...  https://www.sfchronicle.com/politics/article/California-bill-eliminating-sex-offender-list-15529263.php 

 

California bill eliminating sex offender list inequity toward LGBTQ people passes

Edited September 5, 2020 by Voice of Reason

[laylalex 7,300]

It's a law for anyone who has oral or A sex with a person over the age of 14 but under 18, and isn't more than 10 years older than the teenager. A headline is as a headline does -- it pulls in views. I didn't get the memo that I was only supposed to have one kind of sex.

 

And for the fifth (sixth?) time, yes, statutory rape is still on the books. As a 16 year old, I thought it was stupid that I could get someone in trouble for having sex with me (though that was only one person in particular). I now understand that a child is a child, no matter what I felt back then. California is far stricter than most states when it comes to setting the age at 18. 

 

I like it here, it's not for everyone, and that's okay.  America is a huge country, big enough for us all to find places to suit us well. If you're happy to have left, I'm glad you found a place that suited you better.  

[Nature Boy 2.0 8,378]

6 minutes ago, laylalex said:

It's a law for anyone who has oral or A sex with a person over the age of 14 but under 18, and isn't more than 10 years older than the teenager. A headline is as a headline does -- it pulls in views. I didn't get the memo that I was only supposed to have one kind of sex.

 

And for the fifth (sixth?) time, yes, statutory rape is still on the books. As a 16 year old, I thought it was stupid that I could get someone in trouble for having sex with me (though that was only one person in particular). I now understand that a child is a child, no matter what I felt back then. California is far stricter than most states when it comes to setting the age at 18. 

 

I like it here, it's not for everyone, and that's okay.  America is a huge country, big enough for us all to find places to suit us well. If you're happy to have left, I'm glad you found a place that suited you better.  

I laughed at how quickly you qualified your number of 16 year old sex partners

 

[laylalex 7,300]

1 hour ago, Nature Boy 2.0 said:

I laughed at how quickly you qualified your number of 16 year old sex partners

 

I was a faithful 16 year old.   I've never dated anyone younger than me, or married one either. Not by design, it just never happened. And fingers crossed it will never happen for me.

[TBoneTX 45,957]

Need to revise the Penile Code.

[Nature Boy 2.0 8,378]

7 hours ago, TBoneTX said:

Need to revise the Penile Code.

7.9  getting there 

[Burnt Reynolds 5,058]

9 hours ago, TBoneTX said:

Need to revise the Penile Code.

Purchased the NB Deluxe keyboard app? 

[Nature Boy 2.0 8,378]

1 minute ago, Burnt Reynolds said:

Purchased the NB Deluxe keyboard app? 

I think he must have gotten the word filter circumcision app 

 

[Lemonslice 4,960]

20 hours ago, Burnt Reynolds said:

I pay attention?

When I pay attention, I notice what I want.

[Burnt Reynolds 5,058]

6 minutes ago, Lemonslice said:

When I pay attention, I notice what I want.

[Voice of Reason 10,298]

15 hours ago, Nature Boy 2.0 said:

I laughed at how quickly you qualified your number of 16 year old sex partners

 

Technically, she only mentioned one person she might have gotten into trouble, not that (s)he was the only sex partner.  But I like where your head is at.