As the Austrians debate Holocaust deniers and free expression, California's Supreme Court was busy ruling on oral sex with minors. God Bless America! Land that I Love! (But not under age 17).
Thankfully, they ruled that both were similar. The dissenting judge, however, said that oral sex with minors ought to be treated differently than intercourse with minors because one can get you pregnant while the other cannot. Riiiight. Because a 40 year old man having oral sex with my 13 year old daughter is no big deal, just as long as they don't have actual sex?! Please. That is asinine. Notwithstanding my adoration for Bill Clinton, oral sex is sex. Really.
If you don't agree, then perhaps you haven't been doing it right.
KION46
4 comments:
I'm glad the the majority's findings included:
The justices, however, left intact a provision granting trial judges the discretion to demand registration for both categories of adult sex offenders - those that have oral sex or intercourse with minors ages 16 and 17.
Personally, I couldn't see any justice in automatically requiring a 21-year old convicted of having oral sex with 16- or 17-year-old to register as a sex offender for life.
Mister Fed, to paraphrase E., if you don't know the difference, perhaps you haven't been doing it right.
I think it was a joke. You see... it's hard to say intercourse when you've got a five-inch swollen member stuck in your mouth...
or...
so I've been told.
LMFHO!
Post a Comment