27 with 17 seems almost reasonable but then when you get to ages like a 20 with a 10, you have to wonder WTF these people were thinking when they wrote the damn bill.
Gender: Male Location: 4th Street Underpass, Manhattan
IIRC, isn't this the same state that legalized pozzing negholes? Can we be that surprised here? California is what would happen if Florida Man held political office.
Gender: Male Location: 4th Street Underpass, Manhattan
You're right. It shouldn't be a sex offender registry, as it should be more of a Sex Offender Vigilante Hit List. (at least in terms of undeniably proven rapists (of people or animals) and pedos)
So, you want to make it easier for pedos to get access to kids?
__________________ posted by Badabing
I don't know why some of you are going on about being right and winning. Rob and Impediment were in on this gag because I PMed them. Silent and Rao PMed me and figured I changed the post. I highly doubt anybody thought Quan made the post, but simply played along just for the lulz.
I agree there are some gray areas, especially regarding later high school vs usual college ages. But 27 with 17 seems a bit icky to me. I am a well known prude though.
I dated a 29 year old when I was 16. I pursued her, heavily. She didn't want to get involved with me at first but relented eventually. We "broke up" simply because I got busy with work and school and she got busy with school. Just grew apart.
But not all 15 year olds can squat over 400lbs and grow a full beard like I could. So I understand why 17 is really hitting a gray area. It's perfectly legal in some states and illegal in others.
It's the 20 vs. 10 that has me concerned. That's not right no matter what anyone says.
So the purpose of the bill is that current law doesn't automatically dictate that a sex offender has to automatically register as a sex offender if the the sexual conduct was vaginal. That is in general left up to a judge to decide if they do. Other forms of sexual intercourse such as anal do come with a mandatory sexual offender registry.
So they say this current standard is unfair to LGBTQ who have to automatically register as sex offenders vs others who don't.
So I think the idea makes sense. You don't want to have to have a gay 18 year be forced to automatically sign up for being a sex offender when they had sexual relations with a willing 15-16 year old in high school. Especially when a hetero couple in a similar circumstance wouldn't.
What I want to know more on though is this doesn't remove the judge mandate I think. So someone who is 20 taking advantage of a 10 year old would still likely have to be forced to register anyways by a judge.
They would also still be tried and sent to jail for the offenses. As far I can see this doesn't let those instances get away free from burden. It's probably going to be likely that this isn't going to change the actual bad cases of minor abuse and sexual registry.
Of course there might be more to it and I wouldn't knowing more if other people have more information.
EDIT:
So what I'm saying I guess is that I don't think this bill actually would stop the extreme cases here of age difference from still being registered as sex offenders.
__________________ sig by Rao Kal El
Last edited by Newjak on Sep 23rd, 2020 at 05:25 PM
No way. I ALWAYS dated women in their 20s through all my teenage years with one exception. I find it absurd that they were magically more socially mature than I was - never true.
There was no manipulation or power dynamic. Like most American relationships, I, as the male, was the pursuer. And I was successful.
So it is every bit as terrible as I assumed (because 20 with 10 could still happen) with the one caveat being that a judge could intervene and force the heavy-handedness of the law?
a teacher from school of ours went in the pub regularly where we did, when she split up with her husband and was in her late 30s. Another mate Rigsby, started snagging her. Ha, top notch! He was maybe 19-20.
From the sounds of it though that could have already happened.
That caveat already existed from what I read. The only difference being that any homosexual versions auto generated a sex offender status versus a heterosexual one which didn't.
I do agree there could have been other caveats like the age difference only counted after a certain age but it doesn't give a free pass to sexual predators which is the way I hear it described.
Gender: Male Location: 4th Street Underpass, Manhattan
You're all degenerate
But I do think that after the Dems win the White House, they definitely need to start addressing issues like this. I believe in sexual liberation, but this is OBVIOUSLY WAY TOO FAR
Edit: Is this some more Trumpian False News? Might just be
"In today’s episode of massive misinformation by MAGA/QAnon let’s all look at the facts together and learn why #SB145 doesn’t make pedophilia “Legal”.
If you read all the way through, the bill is to protect the LGBTQ community and place statutory rape accusations in front of a judge rather than automatically placing them on sex offender registrations. Statutory rape penalties will now actually EXTEND to oral and anal sex, whereas it previously only covered vaginal penetration. The bill does not give a 24 year olds a pass to have sex with 14 year olds. It puts the case in front of a judge.
“This bill has no application to anyone under the age of 14,” Wiener said. “And that age range is an existing category in the law. It has existed for almost 100 years.”
Read the details. Do the research. Vote.
I’m sure I’ll see you in another couple days with another episode. #59days 🤦🏻‍♀️
So California has Bush stealing their utilities for Enron and conservatives lying about them being pedos for Trump. Republicans really have a petulant hatred for Californian liberalism
KMC Community Forums
Sep 23rd, 2020 03:07 AM
Official pimp of Steverules 
