No, California Did Not Legalize Child Prostitution

Hey, I knwo, although it's illegal for adults to possess crack coc aine, it shouldn't be for minors.

Even though it's criminal for adults to sell heroin, it shouldn't be for minors.

Even though it's illegal for adults to ... ...

... ...

... ...

Any questions?

a reply to: IgnoranceIsntBlisss

I don't understand what is so hard to understand about this. So let's try it a different way.

Explain to me why we prosecute a minor for prostitution??? What is the benefit of doing that??? Keeping in mind if they're under the age of consent they legally aren't even allowed to give consent.

a reply to: mOjOm

All they see is "crime" and "punishment". Go any deeper than that and you've lost them.

a reply to: mOjOm

To deter THEM from getting into it. What is so hard to understand about that?

Apply the same logic to every other punishable offense and watch the entire society break down into a criminal dystopia in 10 years flat.

CHILDREN LEARN BY CONSEQUENCES. Take away consequences and they learn not. I've seen the results of when kids aren't given consequences and they turn into little monsters FOR LIFE. This is Parenting 101. But I suppose adult children wouldn't get it.

This is actually more important for kids than it is adults (I'm not talking about the john's in the context of the underage hooking dont get me wrong).

originally posted by: enlightenedservant
a reply to: mOjOm

All they see is "crime" and "punishment". Go any deeper than that and you've lost them.

That is certainly how it seems.

But it makes sense when you think about how some people view the world and the problems and how to deal with them. If there is something that people are doing then it must be that we aren't punishing them enough to stop doing it. It's always geared toward a negative solution which punishes submission to a rule.

In this case it is weird that we are prosecuting any minor for prostitution at all since legally speaking they technically cannot be at fault for the crime in the first place. When a minor and an adult have sex the minors consent isn't even considered because they are a minor and the adult is thereby responsible for all of it. Even when in reality the minor may totally have been for it. Legally that isn't valid. Which is kinda strange in and of itself too, but that's the law.

Then there is the whole prostitution thing being illegal too even with consenting adults. Because if both parties consent then there is no victim and no crime has taken place other than perhaps some sort of crime dealing with commerce or taxes or something.

It's always seemed strange how it's illegal like it is. The other surrounding issues which are usually used to justify it are dismiss the fact that those are symptoms of something else and that prostitution specifically isn't what's really responsible for those things.

a reply to: mOjOm

LEGALLY SPEAKING? Are you a bunch of lawyers now?

This is about right and wrong.

This is about child development.


Look, if it isn't a crime as an adult then there's room for a debate on this. Until you legalize adult prostitution then this is insane.

a reply to: IgnoranceIsntBlisss

That doesn't matter though. I don't care if they really really really want to be an under age prostitute or not. Legally they aren't given the choice of whether or not to give consent.

Therefor anyone who take them up on their offer is making a deal with someone who isn't allowed to even make that transaction and it's the adult who's responsible for that.

Because what you're talking about is them consenting to have sex while under age. They can't do that by law. Therefore how can they be responsible for it if they legally aren't allowed to be the responsible party in that situation???

You can't charge them with a crime for something that they aren't responsible for.

a reply to: IgnoranceIsntBlisss

If anything sexual happens between a kid and an adult the adult is ALWAYS the responsible party. Always. You can't prosecute someone for something they aren't responsible for can you???

If you want to then you'd have to first give them the ability to consent to have sex. Then and only then can you prosecute them for the crime of selling that sex.

a reply to: IgnoranceIsntBlisss

To deter THEM from getting into it. What is so hard to understand about that?

They are minors. By legal definition, minors are considered too stupid or too naive to make competent decisions. That's literally what the whole "age of consent" thing is all about. There's a reason why juveniles/minors have a different legal system than adults. Or do you think that's wrong, as well?

This is actually more important for kids than it is adults (I'm not talking about the john's in the context of the underage hooking dont get me wrong).

Those "Johns" are pedophiles if they're adults and they're literally preying on children. They and the other adults involved should be aggressively targeted here, not the kids who are being exploited. There can still be mental and physical rehab for the kids to get them to learn the consequences.

I've concluded that a lot of people don't even care about solving the underlying problems in our societies. They just want to make kneejerk reactions to fearmongering scandals without trying to correct the conditions which led to the problem in the first place.

originally posted by: IgnoranceIsntBlisss
Hey, I knwo, although it's illegal for adults to possess crack coc aine, it shouldn't be for minors.

Even though it's criminal for adults to sell heroin, it shouldn't be for minors.

Even though it's illegal for adults to ... ...

... ...

... ...

Any questions?

Yes. Are you deliberately acting ignorant and childish in your thinking?

a reply to: mOjOm

if it doesn`t matter than why did you bring it up?

do you always interject points into a conversation that are completely irrelevant (even by your own admission) to the conversation?

originally posted by: mOjOm
a reply to: IgnoranceIsntBlisss

I don't understand what is so hard to understand about this. So let's try it a different way.

Explain to me why we prosecute a minor for prostitution??? What is the benefit of doing that??? Keeping in mind if they're under the age of consent they legally aren't even allowed to give consent.

so we shouldn`t prosecute minors for driving without a license because legally they aren`t even old enough to drive.
we shouldn`t prosecute minors for owning firearms because legally they aren`t old enough to own them.

The benefit of prosecuting minors for prostitution is so that the state can have some supervision over them and ensure that they receive counselling, education, a stable home, or whatever it is that they need to grow up to be productive members of society.

a reply to: Tardacus

Hey, if you want to prosecute minors for having sex you go right ahead.

First remove the age of consent laws so that they can be legally charged with committing the crime of selling sex. Then you can prosecute them all you want.

Because that will surely help the situation. Because fear and punishment is the cornerstone of how you help kids caught up in the sex trade. Brilliant idea.

FYI, you don't have to prosecute minors in order to help them. That is the most ridiculous idea I've ever heard. Do you not understand the difference between punishing someone and helping them??

a reply to: mOjOm


The double standards of deniability are very obvious. The facts remain that kids from the age of 6 are now self sexualising.www.youtube.com...

a reply to: anonentity

Yeah, I know. I was a kid once too.

That doesn't change how the Law views it though now does it???

If you want to punish children for selling sex you must first remove the laws of consent. Because if they can't consent to sex, they can't be held responsible for selling that sex either. If they aren't responsible then you charge them with anything.

Do you see how that works??? How can you charge someone with a crime that they aren't responsible for???

a reply to: mOjOm



Why should anyone have to sell their body? were already back into a pre industrial labour force, with the same attitudes coming out. Where the master can do anything they want to the surf because they need money to eat. Until this is addressed its all going to get far worse. The weakest in the society will get shafted, that's the young and the old first. While the rich decided which of their ten cars they are going to take on the road today. Change starts at the top and I don't see any.

a reply to: anonentity

I don't disagree with anything you just said.

All the more reason to stop criminalizing kids and start going after adults who prey on them. Because as you said they are the most vulnerable in society. I wouldn't say weakest exactly other than the old. Young doesn't make you weak but it does make one inexperienced in dealing with life and others usually.

a reply to: mOjOm


Were dealing with something which is so endemic, its only natural that legislators with a liking for underage bodies will pass underage friendly legislation. Here's a little snippet from Australia, we now have to assume paedophilia, is normal already in many seats of power, and the only answer seems to be "Get over it". pickeringpost.com... ....and its all maintained by people too afraid of these powerful people to come forward. www.youtube.com...

a reply to: anonentity

Except this isn't "underage friendly legislation" like you're assuming. This is just stopping kids from getting prosecuted for prostitution because they're underage and shouldn't be made into criminals for engaging in that behavior.

You insist on pushing an idea despite the evidence against what you're saying in how it relates to this California law. Now you're just saying we should automatically assume all legislation in this area is pro pedophilia. That's just insane.

Why do you refuse to accept this bill is exactly what it says it is and try to spin it into the opposite??

a reply to: mOjOm


The problem with your summation, is that the majority online think its a Pedo friendly law change. Probably you are right, if the child caught soliciting then placed into state care, they probably haven't got a hope in hell of getting out.