Welcome • User Guide
ToS • Privacy • Canary
Donate • Bugs • License

©2026 Poal.co

590

>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.

I could see 17 and 27 being ok, but what about 9 and 19? or 11 and 21? That's fucking gross. Reason 9,763,541 to say "Fuck California"

Edit As @asdf_1111 pointed out, this isn't any 10 year gap, it only applies to 10 year gaps between the ages of 14-17.

>>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. I could see 17 and 27 being ok, but what about 9 and 19? or 11 and 21? That's fucking gross. Reason 9,763,541 to say "Fuck California" Edit As @asdf_1111 pointed out, this isn't any 10 year gap, it only applies to 10 year gaps between the ages of 14-17.

(post is archived)

You are currently inside a comment thread.
Click here to see all the comments (16).
[–] • 2 pts

The article intentionally omits a lot of details to make it appear more bad than it is, which is to be expected from Breidbart.

The article linked in the article which properly explains the law is here https://archive.vn/eV3R5

[–] • 0 pt

Thank you for the link, and for the relavant reminder that one should be more skeptical of something that fits your bias. The AP article you linked indicated 14-17, which means that 14 and 24 is still a possibility.

[–] • 1 pt

yes, but that matches the law for vaginal intercourse, if the victim is 14 and the guy is 24, the rules would apply as well and that is the case already

[–] • 0 pt

I edited the original post and credited you for the correction. Have another upvote.