Talk About Marriage banner

21 - 40 of 98 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,268 Posts
Ok.......what?
Prepare for ridiculous interpretations of what the law did, which was not decriminalize anything. It extended already existing options for judges to not require homosexuals to register as sex offenders for life. It is up to the judge, is still a crime, and must be within certain criteria for the judge to have the option.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,699 Posts
No, they didn't. You should look into what it actually did, it did not decriminalize anything.

------

I am curious what world you guys live in where this stuff isn't all around you? People I know on fb, people around town, groups all over, there are girls wearing skimpy outfits and dancing all over. Hell, did you not have cheerleaders when you were in HS/MS? I am not saying that all of this sexualization of children is ok, at all. But, this isn't a 'hollywood is the devil' problem, this is art imitating life.

Here is a routine by 8 year olds:
Actually they did -- YOU are incorrect unless you parse it very carefully.

"California lawmakers passed a bill Monday that would reduce penalties for adults who have oral or anal sex with a willing minor child if the sex offender is within ten years of the age of the victim. "

"exempts a person convicted of nonforcible sodomy with a minor, oral copulation with a minor, or sexual penetration with a minor, as specified, from having to automatically register as a sex offender."

Though it removes the "automatic" requirement, "a person convicted of one of those specified offenses may still be ordered to register in the discretion of the court."

It's also applicable only if the adult was within 10 years of age of the minor at the time the offense, and the minor was at least 14 years old – provisions known in some states as Romeo and Juliet laws.
"
So if you want to parse it, they didn't make it "legal" they just took the teeth out of any sort of repercussion by allowing them NOT to be on a sex offenders list -- same difference. If there are no repercussions, it is pretty much legal.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,268 Posts
Actually they did -- YOU are incorrect unless you parse it very carefully.

"California lawmakers passed a bill Monday that would reduce penalties for adults who have oral or anal sex with a willing minor child if the sex offender is within ten years of the age of the victim. "

"exempts a person convicted of nonforcible sodomy with a minor, oral copulation with a minor, or sexual penetration with a minor, as specified, from having to automatically register as a sex offender."

Though it removes the "automatic" requirement, "a person convicted of one of those specified offenses may still be ordered to register in the discretion of the court."

It's also applicable only if the adult was within 10 years of age of the minor at the time the offense, and the minor was at least 14 years old – provisions known in some states as Romeo and Juliet laws.
"
So if you want to parse it, they didn't make it "legal" they just took the teeth out of any sort of repercussion by allowing them NOT to be on a sex offenders list -- same difference. If there are no repercussions, it is pretty much legal.
From your own post: would reduce penalties as in not decriminalize and the only reduction is the judges discretion to not make the person a sex offender for life.

This was an existing law, if you put a penis in a vagina. They changed it, because the original wording was designed to exclude homosexuals. Also, if you are 19 and have sex with a 16 year old, that's ok, but if she blows you, SEX OFFENDER FOR LIFE!

Giving judges the discretion on registering for life if it falls with in certain, fairly clear, criteria is just a common sense thing. I have known a person that is a sex offender for life because he started dating a sophomore as a senior, graduated, and her dad pressed charges.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,699 Posts
From your own post: would reduce penalties as in not decriminalize and the only reduction is the judges discretion to not make the person a sex offender for life.

This was an existing law, if you put a penis in a vagina. They changed it, because the original wording was designed to exclude homosexuals. Also, if you are 19 and have sex with a 16 your old, that's ok, but if she blows you, SEX OFFENDER FOR LIFE!
Again, take the teeth out of the law, and you take away any repercussions of doing this. If they had ANY morals, they would have changed the law for the "hetero" part that they HAD to register as sex offenders, but nope, they took the exact opposite and made it ok for all.... You think judges in Cali are going to actually enforce registering when they don't have to now? Highly doubt it.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,268 Posts
Again, take the teeth out of the law, and you take away any repercussions of doing this. If they had ANY morals, they would have changed the law for the "hetero" part that they HAD to register as sex offenders, but nope, they took the exact opposite and made it ok for all.... You think judges in Cali are going to actually enforce registering when they don't have to now? Highly doubt it.
Multiple states have laws like this. They make sense, everything isn't black and white, and when you are talking about lifetime punishments, giving someone a narrow set of options seems like a reasonable thing to do.

Look, you hate Cali, and you think everyone there just wants to screw kids, whatever, that is your opinion, it doesn't change the fact that the law changed no criminal penalties or laws, but gave a judge the ability to not punish someone for life if they felt it was not justified.
 

·
Administrator
Joined
·
44,504 Posts
Again, take the teeth out of the law, and you take away any repercussions of doing this. If they had ANY morals, they would have changed the law for the "hetero" part that they HAD to register as sex offenders, but nope, they took the exact opposite and made it ok for all.... You think judges in Cali are going to actually enforce registering when they don't have to now? Highly doubt it.
The law used to be this way for heterosexual offenses... the judge had the option of whether or not a person had to register as a sex offender is a few, well defined situations. But for homosexual cases, the judge had no discression. The changes simply made the law the same regardless of whether it was heterosexual acts or homosexual acts.

SB 145 applies only to cases involving minors between the ages of 14-17, and an offender within a 10-year range.

for example, if it's consensual sex between a 17 year old and a 19 year old, the judge can choose to not have the 19 year old placed on the sex offender list now just as it has been for heterosexual acts all along.

 

·
Administrator
Joined
·
44,504 Posts
Actually they did -- YOU are incorrect unless you parse it very carefully.

"California lawmakers passed a bill Monday that would reduce penalties for adults who have oral or anal sex with a willing minor child if the sex offender is within ten years of the age of the victim. "

"exempts a person convicted of nonforcible sodomy with a minor, oral copulation with a minor, or sexual penetration with a minor, as specified, from having to automatically register as a sex offender."

Though it removes the "automatic" requirement, "a person convicted of one of those specified offenses may still be ordered to register in the discretion of the court."

It's also applicable only if the adult was within 10 years of age of the minor at the time the offense, and the minor was at least 14 years old – provisions known in some states as Romeo and Juliet laws.
"
So if you want to parse it, they didn't make it "legal" they just took the teeth out of any sort of repercussion by allowing them NOT to be on a sex offenders list -- same difference. If there are no repercussions, it is pretty much legal.
SB 145 would eliminate automatic sex offender registration for young adults who have anal or oral sex with a minor. Instead, a judge would make the decision, just as they do now in cases involving vaginal intercourse.
SB 145 would apply only to cases involving minors between the ages of 14-17, and an offender within a 10-year range.
It remains illegal under California law for any adult to have sex with a minor.

 

·
Administrator
Joined
·
44,504 Posts
Here are the penalties in California. These were not changed by the changes to SB 145

Penalties For Statutory Rape:
The penalties for unlawful sex with a minor vary significantly depending on what the relative ages of the defendant and the victim happen to be. Depending on these relative age differences, the crime will either be a misdemeanor or a felony. There are also civil penalties imposed on the defendant, with the amount depending on the age differences.

Misdemeanor - when the defendant is no more than 2 years older than the victim:
  1. Imprisonment in a county jail for up to one year; and/or
  2. A civil penalty of up to $2,000.00.; and/or
  3. Three years of summary probation.
Misdemeanor - when the defendant is between 2 and 3 years older than the victim:
  1. Imprisonment in a county jail for up to one year; and/or
  2. A civil penalty of up to $5,000.00.; and/or
  3. Three years of summary probation.
Felony - when the defendant is more than 3 years older than the victim:
  1. Imprisonment in a county jail or state prison for up to three years; and/or
  2. A civil penalty of up to $10,000.00.; and/or
  3. Five years of formal probation.
Felony - when the defendant is at least 21, and the victim is under 16:
  1. Imprisonment in a county jail or state prison for up to four years; and/or
  2. A civil penalty of up to $25,000.00.; and/or
  3. Five years of formal probation.
In addition to the penalties listed above, each defendant convicted of statutory rape is required to pay a fine of $70.00 to be used for state-sponsored educational programs, and will in most cases be required to register as a sex offender. However, unlike many other sex crimes that require sex offender registration, the registration period required for individuals convicted of statutory rape typically only extends through the period of probation for the defendant, rather than a lifetime registration.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
1,405 Posts
The 70s and 80s were pretty much my generation and I saw blue lagoon and endless Love back then and remember being disturbed by it. And I was pretty swinging seventies myself. Endless Love bothered me worse than the other one and then I think I saw pretty baby a lot later if I saw it at all but I knew what it was about.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
2,988 Posts
To be honest, I don't believe they have any boundaries at all. "Anything Goes."
You think. Hollywood is a cesspool of deparavity...can you say Harvey Weinstein?
Look at what gets nominated for the Oscar. I seldom find any movies I like anymore.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
2,988 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,665 Posts
She made three cringey movies when she was young. Pretty baby, blue lagoon, and Endless Love, in which her boyfriend to her parents disapprove of who is a violent stalker, is portrayed as sympathetic.
I read an assessment of some Shirley Temple movies one time, and while not pornographic it sounded pretty inappropriate. I seem to recall her tickling the unrelated man she lived with while he was sleeping.
 

·
Administrator
Joined
·
44,504 Posts
SB145 isn't a blanket sweep for pedos, it's ''baby'' steps.

Decriminalizing and normalizing pedophilia IS on the agenda.
Did you look at my posts on this thread? I posted links with information. SB145 does not decriminalize and normalize pedophilia (sexual acts with a prepubescent child). This law applies to Statutory Rape of teenagers age 14-17 (ephebophilia). The law also does not legalize Statutory Rape of teenagers as these are still crimes and the penalties remain the same. (See post #30)

Before SB145, the law left if up to the judge's discretion whether or not the offender would have to register as a sex offender for life if the offense was PIV. But if the offense was oral sex or anal sex it was automatic registration as a sex offender for life. So for example if a 17 year old and 18 year old had oral sex, the 18 year old would have to register as a sex offender for life.

Under SB145 the judge has the discretion to not make it so that the 18 year old (offender) has to register as a sex offender for life.
 

·
Super Moderator
Joined
·
8,213 Posts
Well, that was my first viewing and it was ridiculous. What struck me was it seemed like a natural progression from the child beauty contests. Little JonBenet Ramsey still haunts me.
Yeah, that was horrible.

When I was a kid....I'm 46 now...my mom had me in those kiddie beauty pageants. They were nothing like what we see now....you put on a dress and maybe got ribbons in your hair, and you had to showcase a talent. Mine was baton twirling and tap. Of course as soon as I got a little older I quit and played soccer, but i still have pictures and a couple of awards. There is nothing remotely sexual about my pictures. Things sure have changed.

Ironically my mom was the last person you'd expect to have her daughter in this kind of thing. She had multiple black belts and never bothered to do her hair or anything. And she hated pink.
 
21 - 40 of 98 Posts
Top