Who else dreads this year?

[LordsFire]

Statutory rape laws can be and too often are abused. I knew a guy who was a convicted felon, because when he was 17, he had sex with his 16 year old girlfriend, and didn't realize that at 17 he was considered an adult in that state.

It was utter nonsense, and I say that as someone who thinks that no one should have sex outside of marriage, period. Casual sex between consenting adults (or legally similarly-aged young adults/minors) is immoral, but isn't the business of the government to police.

That said, this business of California changing the laws in these ways is a blatant attempt to open the door for pedophiles. It's sick and twisted, and is the sort of thing that's going to result in (more) people fleeing the state, vigilante justice, and maybe the Dems actually losing their chokehold on the state.

I would support a law that barred charges of statutory rape against someone within two, maybe three years of age of the person they had sex with. I think it's far from crazy for a 16 year old and an 18 year old, or a 17 year old and a 19 year old to be in a relationship together. Again, they should get married if they want to get into bed together, but calling that rape just because of the ages is absurd.

20 and 12 though? That's nuts.

 

[Arch Dornan]

Statutory rape laws can be and too often are abused. I knew a guy who was a convicted felon, because when he was 17, he had sex with his 16 year old girlfriend, and didn't realize that at 17 he was considered an adult in that state.

It was utter nonsense, and I say that as someone who thinks that no one should have sex outside of marriage, period. Casual sex between consenting adults (or legally similarly-aged young adults/minors) is immoral, but isn't the business of the government to police.

That said, this business of California changing the laws in these ways is a blatant attempt to open the door for pedophiles. It's sick and twisted, and is the sort of thing that's going to result in (more) people fleeing the state, vigilante justice, and maybe the Dems actually losing their chokehold on the state.

I would support a law that barred charges of statutory rape against someone within two, maybe three years of age of the person they had sex with. I think it's far from crazy for a 16 year old and an 18 year old, or a 17 year old and a 19 year old to be in a relationship together. Again, they should get married if they want to get into bed together, but calling that rape just because of the ages is absurd.

20 and 12 though? That's nuts.

I agree but it's in my opinion a modern concept taken to where it is. It is ridiculous but this is the result of it.

 

[Zachowon]

Statutory rape laws can be and too often are abused. I knew a guy who was a convicted felon, because when he was 17, he had sex with his 16 year old girlfriend, and didn't realize that at 17 he was considered an adult in that state.

It was utter nonsense, and I say that as someone who thinks that no one should have sex outside of marriage, period. Casual sex between consenting adults (or legally similarly-aged young adults/minors) is immoral, but isn't the business of the government to police.

That said, this business of California changing the laws in these ways is a blatant attempt to open the door for pedophiles. It's sick and twisted, and is the sort of thing that's going to result in (more) people fleeing the state, vigilante justice, and maybe the Dems actually losing their chokehold on the state.

I would support a law that barred charges of statutory rape against someone within two, maybe three years of age of the person they had sex with. I think it's far from crazy for a 16 year old and an 18 year old, or a 17 year old and a 19 year old to be in a relationship together. Again, they should get married if they want to get into bed together, but calling that rape just because of the ages is absurd.

20 and 12 though? That's nuts.

It is why the Romeo and Julliet laws exist in various states.

 

[LordSunhawk]

After discussing this with somebody more familiar with CA law this is a nothingburger (although some of his OTHER bills are horrendous)

Specifically this is updating CA's Romeo and Juliet law to extend beyond vaginal sex (Yes, CA's law specifically only applied to vaginal sex, so if you were busted for oral sex you were a sex offender...)

And in regards to LF's statement above, sometimes even being married isn't protection. Neighbor of mine got married straight out of high school to his high school sweetheart, the day after graduation. His birthday was that day, her birthday was the next day.

Unfortunately it was a small town and a rather jealous prat who had been soundly rejected by her years earlier who's father was the local prosecutor arranged for him to be arrested on their way to the honeymoon on the grounds that since they were married they'd obviously consummated the marriage and since she was a day under 18 that was statutory rape.

Even though they hadn't had sex, the prosecutor still charged them, convinced the judge (who was a cousin of his) to disallow any testimony about whether or not any sort of sex had ever happened, wouldn't let her take the stand to testify that they'd not slept together yet, and railroaded a conviction.

It got overturned on appeal, but still.

Oh, and they've now been married going on 30 years, 4 kids, 7 grandkids. And he still has to regularly forward notarized copies of the appeals court writ of mandamus to DPS to prove he isn't, in fact, required to register as a sex offender (because that judge? Refused to follow the appeals court ruling to expunge the conviction.)

 

[Arch Dornan]

https://www.the-sietch.com/index.php?threads/the-motivations-for-sex-and-the-consequences.3478/

I made a thread.

 

[Jormungandr]

I'm gonna start dumping my spare change on Betfair into this.

 

[Knowledgeispower]

After discussing this with somebody more familiar with CA law this is a nothingburger (although some of his OTHER bills are horrendous)

Specifically this is updating CA's Romeo and Juliet law to extend beyond vaginal sex (Yes, CA's law specifically only applied to vaginal sex, so if you were busted for oral sex you were a sex offender...)

And in regards to LF's statement above, sometimes even being married isn't protection. Neighbor of mine got married straight out of high school to his high school sweetheart, the day after graduation. His birthday was that day, her birthday was the next day.

Unfortunately it was a small town and a rather jealous prat who had been soundly rejected by her years earlier who's father was the local prosecutor arranged for him to be arrested on their way to the honeymoon on the grounds that since they were married they'd obviously consummated the marriage and since she was a day under 18 that was statutory rape.

Even though they hadn't had sex, the prosecutor still charged them, convinced the judge (who was a cousin of his) to disallow any testimony about whether or not any sort of sex had ever happened, wouldn't let her take the stand to testify that they'd not slept together yet, and railroaded a conviction.

It got overturned on appeal, but still.

Oh, and they've now been married going on 30 years, 4 kids, 7 grandkids. And he still has to regularly forward notarized copies of the appeals court writ of mandamus to DPS to prove he isn't, in fact, required to register as a sex offender (because that judge? Refused to follow the appeals court ruling to expunge the conviction.)

Sounds like both the prosecutor and judge should have been disbarred. Hell they should have sent to prison for abuse of power

 

[Urabrask Revealed]

After discussing this with somebody more familiar with CA law this is a nothingburger (although some of his OTHER bills are horrendous)

Specifically this is updating CA's Romeo and Juliet law to extend beyond vaginal sex (Yes, CA's law specifically only applied to vaginal sex, so if you were busted for oral sex you were a sex offender...)

And in regards to LF's statement above, sometimes even being married isn't protection. Neighbor of mine got married straight out of high school to his high school sweetheart, the day after graduation. His birthday was that day, her birthday was the next day.

Unfortunately it was a small town and a rather jealous prat who had been soundly rejected by her years earlier who's father was the local prosecutor arranged for him to be arrested on their way to the honeymoon on the grounds that since they were married they'd obviously consummated the marriage and since she was a day under 18 that was statutory rape.

Even though they hadn't had sex, the prosecutor still charged them, convinced the judge (who was a cousin of his) to disallow any testimony about whether or not any sort of sex had ever happened, wouldn't let her take the stand to testify that they'd not slept together yet, and railroaded a conviction.

It got overturned on appeal, but still.

Oh, and they've now been married going on 30 years, 4 kids, 7 grandkids. And he still has to regularly forward notarized copies of the appeals court writ of mandamus to DPS to prove he isn't, in fact, required to register as a sex offender (because that judge? Refused to follow the appeals court ruling to expunge the conviction.)

Please tell that asshole who started this mess ended up like Byff of Back to the Future.

 

[Doomsought]

Oh, and they've now been married going on 30 years, 4 kids, 7 grandkids. And he still has to regularly forward notarized copies of the appeals court writ of mandamus to DPS to prove he isn't, in fact, required to register as a sex offender (because that judge? Refused to follow the appeals court ruling to expunge the conviction.)

Every time that happened, he should have called the Appeals judge asking for contempt of court on the lower judge. Judges hat nothing more than their power being called into question.

 

[Lanmandragon]

Statutory rape laws can be and too often are abused. I knew a guy who was a convicted felon, because when he was 17, he had sex with his 16 year old girlfriend, and didn't realize that at 17 he was considered an adult in that state.

It was utter nonsense, and I say that as someone who thinks that no one should have sex outside of marriage, period. Casual sex between consenting adults (or legally similarly-aged young adults/minors) is immoral, but isn't the business of the government to police.

That said, this business of California changing the laws in these ways is a blatant attempt to open the door for pedophiles. It's sick and twisted, and is the sort of thing that's going to result in (more) people fleeing the state, vigilante justice, and maybe the Dems actually losing their chokehold on the state.

I would support a law that barred charges of statutory rape against someone within two, maybe three years of age of the person they had sex with. I think it's far from crazy for a 16 year old and an 18 year old, or a 17 year old and a 19 year old to be in a relationship together. Again, they should get married if they want to get into bed together, but calling that rape just because of the ages is absurd.

20 and 12 though? That's nuts.

I genrally figure 4 years so basically did you go to high school with her. As I don't really see an issue with a senior/freshmen realationship.

 

[Rocinante]

I genrally figure 4 years so basically did you go to high school with her. As I don't really see an issue with a senior/freshmen realationship.

In ohio, the age of consent is 16, with a 4 year limit. So a 20 year old can have sex with a 16 year old, if he was 21, it's statutory rape. 17 can go up to 21 and 18+ is full blown age of consent.

That seems like a sensible compromise along those lines.

I'm not sure what happens between two 15 year olds. I assume a 15 and 16 together is still statutory rape, but probably not enforced.

 

[Certified_Heterosexual]

The next step will probably be finding a judge who thinks "confusion about sexuality" is a valid reason for finding that the victim wasn't actually unwilling. "Willing" here should be a HUGE red flag, as even liberals argue that even consent is a problematic concept when there's a disparity in age/status/power, so effectively "willing" just means "not physically resisting."

 

[Typhonis]

OK so allegedly 'cities will burn' if Biden is not elected president. How is that different from now and how badly will the Democrats react to a genuine Trump landslide? As well as 'certain ' websites that think Trump is worst president?

 

[Rocinante]

OK so allegedly 'cities will burn' if Biden is not elected president. How is that different from now and how badly will the Democrats react to a genuine Trump landslide? As well as 'certain ' websites that think Trump is worst president?

If they're running on "vote on us to appease the mob," that's just one reason I *won't* vote for them. I don't negotiate with terrorists.

 

[Shadepen97]

If they're running on "vote on us to appease the mob," that's just one reason I *won't* vote for them. I don't negotiate with terrorists.

When I was in Preschool in Japan, the only American shows and movies we watched put major emphasis on the "never negotiate with terrorists" and that "bullies deserve a beating". In the US I was bounced between school districts because the "No-Tolerance" rules always taught me that if I did not want to be bullied I had to put anyone who attacked me in the hospital and unable to speak, it also taught me that black people are "more equal" than everyone else. If antifa wants to come to my house, they will not find a soft target.

 

[Doomsought]

OK so allegedly 'cities will burn' if Biden is not elected president. How is that different from now and how badly will the Democrats react to a genuine Trump landslide? As well as 'certain ' websites that think Trump is worst president?

They are doing the propaganda set up for a civil war. At the low end this means that it will be like the Troubles in the UK, with political assassinations and bombings in cities.

 

[Urabrask Revealed]

They are doing the propaganda set up for a civil war. At the low end this means that it will be like the Troubles in the UK, with political assassinations and bombings in cities.

Eh, at the end of the day, things will pretty simple. Cut off electricity, water, and food going into the cities, and give them an ultimatum: "Hand over all your antifa-goons, democrat-leaders, and rebels, or you will be put under siege until you yield or die. Either is fine to us."

 

[LordsFire]

OK so allegedly 'cities will burn' if Biden is not elected president. How is that different from now and how badly will the Democrats react to a genuine Trump landslide? As well as 'certain ' websites that think Trump is worst president?

We'll not likely know until a month after the election.

I expect that, the most likely situation after a decisive or landslide Trump win, we'll see a brief uptick in violence, but all except the extreme fringe will get dispirited and go home, denying the extreme fringe cover to protect them. At that point, some of the fringe will withdraw without their cover mob to protect them, and the rest will cause some more damage before they're arrested.

Next most likely, is you see a serious ongoing uptick of violence over a sustained period in Democrat-controlled cities. If that happens, we'll see whether Trump decides to let the Dems reap what they sow until they actually ask for help, or if he just invokes the Insurrection act or similar and rolls in. Even if he doesn't roll in, you can still expect the gloves to come off in regards to protecting Federal buildings like Courthouses. No more of this 'we just keep a shield wall until you start burning the building down,' instead you'll see 'you get your 1-3 warnings to disperse, then we charge in and start making arrests.'

In the less likely aftermath, where the Democrats outright throw a major temper tantrum when even all their cheating isn't enough to give them the election, you might see certain Democrat-controlled states getting reminded that state authority is subordinate to Federal, and no, we decided the issue of Democrats getting to secede from the union 150 years ago.

 

[Typhonis]

 

[Arch Dornan]

Bill looks like he wants to relax on an island away from Hilary.