California Law SB-1322 Greenlights Child Prostitution, Criminalizes Being Poor

Much has been made very recently, in the mainstream media and the alternative media, regarding the notion that California’s new law, Senate Bill No. 1322, makes child prostitution theoretically legal within the State of California. And after a very close investigation of that particular piece of legislation by your old Uncle Bob, I have come to the conclusion that this is not entirely accurate.

The State of California has passed a controversial law decriminalizing prostitution for minors by treating them as victims, not criminals, but that has some legislators arguing that in theory, it legalizes child prostitution.

SB 1322, authored by Sen. Holly Mitchell (D-Los Angeles), was part of a series of bills Gov. Jerry Brown signed into law in that will go into effect on January 1, 2017. While solicitation and loitering with the intent to commit prostitution are misdemeanor crimes, SB 1332 bars law enforcement from charging minors — anyone under the age of 18 — with prostitution.

In actuality, California’s new pedophile-friendly bill does not specifically legalize child prostitution—it merely takes away virtually all of the criminal penalties that a consenting minor child under the age of 18, and a consenting adult over the age of 18, might incur for engaging in the practice. And as the progressive California lawmakers no doubt want you to believe, that is a very, very great distinction there, my friends—yes indeed.

You can put lipstick on a pig…but it’s still a pig


Essentially, this new leftist bill puts lipstick on a pig. The pig is still a pig, and it’s ugly as hell, very much like that green-haired, shrapnel-faced, tatted-up, single mom you know—the one who wears a ton of whorish makeup, in order to mask her unsightly mug, so that she might more easily sell her oft-used ass. In order to prove my assertion, we’ll dissect the actual legal language of the bill which proves this point, in just a minute.

As our first order of business, however, we’ll take a look at another piece of interesting legislation that is buried within the guts of California SB-1322, which virtually all mainstream and alternative media journalists have either unintentionally missed, or decided to ignore altogether. And it’s a crafty little piece of legislation, I must admit, as it actually criminalizes being poor. That is, it makes a criminal out of any poor sap who doesn’t have enough money to pay for the services of an underage California hooker.

“The Golden Rule”: He who has the gold makes the rules


The specific verbiage which points out the aforementioned can be found within Section 1-647(c), of SB-1322, which reads:

647. Except as provided in paragraph (2) of subdivision (b) and subdivision (l), every person who commits any of the following acts is guilty of disorderly conduct, a misdemeanor…(c) Who accosts other persons in any public place or in any place open to the public for the purpose of begging or soliciting alms. (e) Who lodges in any building, structure, vehicle, or place, whether public or private, without the permission of the owner or person entitled to the possession or in control of it.

(The entire text of California Senate Bill No. 1322 can be accessed right here.)

So it is now a crime to ask for financial assistance from anybody, in public places and public spaces in California, and it is now a crime to sleep on anybody’s property, without their express permission—and this includes a public park, or a bus bench, or a sidewalk. In short, being destitute in the State of California is now a crime.

No matter how you look at it, the State of California has made panhandling and sleeping in a public place illegal. If you get arrested for either offense, and have the money to fight it in court, you might be able to thwart a conviction, or get your conviction overturned. But if you’re destitute or homeless (which is virtually the only reason why you would panhandle or sleep in a public place to begin with), you won’t be able to fight the charges anyway. Ch-ching—the state wins again!

Do as we say, not as we do…big profits for us, pure chaos for you


Myriad corporations, via the avid protection and eager assistance of their liberal, legislative lapdogs in California, can now force vaccinations on virtually any child who resides within the state, a practice which, as a whistleblower who worked for the Center for Disease Control has very openly admitted, imposes serious health risks on the recipient; they can gobble up as much of the available potable water in California as they desire and sell it or hoard it at their leisure; and now, pimps, thugs, gangsters and degenerates can prostitute your underage child without fear of interference from the law, while any adult with enough money to pay for the service can freely and openly bang your underage child without fear of legal reprisals of any kind (more on this in a minute).

However, if you should happen to take refuge from the vagaries of out-of-control inflation and/or lawmaker-assisted job-decimation, by pausing for a few moments, in order to take a nap underneath a bridge or doze off in a park, you’re going straight to the slammer, mister. And don’t ask anybody along the way for a couple of bucks so you can buy a cheeseburger or we’ll add a second offense to the charges.

If you are really, really hungry, or if you have no way to pay your bills, well…pimp your nine-year-old daughter out for sex, all right? Get with the goddamned progressive program, you hideous lawbreaker. What the hell is wrong with you?

It’s officially open season on minors in California

The Four

So let’s get back to that child prostitution law which is housed within California SB-1322, shall we. Because, as previously mentioned, it doesn’t legalize child prostitution within the State of California, it merely rescinds any and all criminal penalties that a minor child might incur, for engaging in the practice, while simultaneously giving the judge overseeing the case, the power to designate some of them as dependent children of the court in the bargain.

The specific verbiage which points this out can be found within Section 1-647(2), of SB-1322, which reads:

647. Except as provided in paragraph (2) of subdivision (b) and subdivision (l), every person who commits any of the following acts is guilty of disorderly conduct, a misdemeanor… (2) Notwithstanding paragraph (1), this subdivision does not apply to a child under 18 years of age who is alleged to have engaged in conduct to receive money or other consideration that would, if committed by an adult, violate this subdivision. A commercially exploited child under this paragraph may be adjudged a dependent child of the court pursuant to paragraph (2) of subdivision (b) of Section 300 of the Welfare and Institutions Code and may be taken into temporary custody pursuant to subdivision (a) of Section 305 of the Welfare and Institutions Code, if the conditions allowing temporary custody without warrant are met.

So if your underage daughter gets busted for hooking in California, she won’t even get charged with a misdemeanor; however, she might be adjudged a dependent child of the court and be taken into temporary custody. I’m sure it probably depends on how hot the judge thinks she is.

Meet the new boss, same as the old boss


And what about the penalties incurred by adults who engage in sexual acts with underage prostitutes within the State of California?

The specific verbiage which spells this out can be found within Section 1-647(2), of SB-1322, which reads:

647. Except as provided in paragraph (5) of subdivision (b) and subdivision (l), every person who commits any of the following acts is guilty of disorderly conduct, a misdemeanor: (3) An individual who solicits, or who agrees to engage in, or who engages in, any act of prostitution with another person who is a minor in exchange for the individual providing compensation, money, or anything of value to the minor. An individual agrees to engage in an act of prostitution when, with specific intent to so engage, he or she manifests an acceptance of an offer or solicitation by someone who is a minor to so engage, regardless of whether the offer or solicitation was made by a minor who also possessed the specific intent to engage in an act of prostitution. (4) A manifestation of acceptance of an offer or solicitation to engage in an act of prostitution DOES NOT CONSTITUTE A VIOLATION OF THIS SUBDIVISION UNLESS SOME ACT, IN ADDITION TO THE MANIFESTATION OF ACCEPTANCE (author’s emphasis), is done within this state in furtherance of the commission of the act of prostitution by the person manifesting an acceptance of an offer or solicitation to engage in that act. As used in this subdivision, ‘prostitution’ includes any lewd act between persons for money or other consideration.

So it’s now a misdemeanor (disorderly conduct, to be specific) for an adult to engage in sexual acts with an underage prostitute in California. But there appears to be a convenient loophole in the legislation. Essentially, it looks very much like a deliberately created Catch-22 which makes it extremely easy for any adult who is accused of having sex with a “child prostitute” to escape the charges.

In fact, upon closer inspection of (4) above, it looks as if a peace officer would actually have to catch the perpetrator in the act of having sex with the child, in order to arrest the adult in question. And even if the adult in question doesn’t escape the charges, well, it’s still only a misdemeanor. So the full-tilt pedo party is definitely on—right now—within the warm-and-fuzzy boundaries of the great State of California.



Perhaps liberal Californians should try to look on the bright side here. Because things could always be crazier. Take Magnolia, Texas, for example. In that fine city, it is now illegal to walk your own child home from school.

I’ll bet the liberal residents of The Golden State are breathing a collective sigh of relief after finding out about that one. At least they don’t have it as bad as they do over there in that evil little town in the godforsaken Red State of Texas.

Why, it probably makes the average liberal Californian feel all patriotic, puffed-up and proud; which, much like what has now been conclusively proven to be the effective legalization of child prostitution within the State of California by your old Uncle Bob, is exactly how the leftist social engineers undoubtedly planned it.

Read More: Has Higher Education Become A Scam?

325 thoughts on “California Law SB-1322 Greenlights Child Prostitution, Criminalizes Being Poor”

  1. I propose a new law for California called FU-1776 or “Fuck You. Respect 1776”.
    Give people the same gun ownership and carry privileges that all people with clean criminal records get in the red states. Chicago and New York, I’m looking at you too.

    1. Are we still on guns rights? Most people who harp on that really dont understand that anyone who is really about their guns often buy them at flea markets and leave them unregistered. It’s basically the same nerds who complain about having to buy a hunting license haha

        1. Take a visit to the south east sometime and ill show you a real flea market in alabama

        2. There’s a big flea market just about 30 minutes north of Cincinnati that I go to from time to time. There’s a huge outside lot filled with a couple of hundred vendors, and then a pole barn type of indoor affair for more vendors. The indoor pole barn thing has a sign asking open carriers to please conceal carry only inside of the building due to it being so crowded (safety concern). I kinda like Ohio.

      1. That’s true, however, there is a big push to close the “gun show loophole” aka “people trading their property legally and peacefully”, so those flea market things may not exist long.
        Personally I go to gun shows and buy from private collections. No paperwork necessary and cash on the barrel. Kind of the same thing that you’re saying. The only exception are items that I really can’t get without some…paperwork.

      2. There are no legal ramifcations for not registering you firearms in most states even when you purchase them new. The background check at the gunshow is to ensure you are not a felon.

        1. In most states there is no such thing as registration, yet.

        2. Yes. As +20 million firearms were sold in 2016 in the US alone, I would surmize it’s pointless.

        3. I’m always amazed at how many people (not you) think that one must register a firearm and get a permit to own one. Americans I mean. I get New Jersey and a few of the commie states, but I’m talking about just normal Americans from places like Kansas or Indiana. Television and movies do a great job of trying to make that seem like a reality, when in fact it’s utter bullshit.
          Want a gun, buy a gun, no government registration or permit required (except you two or three slave states and your FOID crap).

        4. If any Kansan thinks that, theu are not a true Kansan.
          Kansas has great gun laws, very few.

  2. I posted about this last week and all of my friends who leaned left told me i was “taking it out of contexts” and that “All child prostitutes are forced to do it”. I pointed out that this law is redundant because even if it remained illegal it was ultimately up to the state to decide whether or not the child is charged with anything and I highly doubt that California would charge a minor. It’s probably just some loophole law so hollywood celebs can get down with whomever they please. Fuck California, even their weed sucks now.

    1. What? This law absolutely does nothing to alter criminal penalties for adult Jons or pimps. All this does is allow the state to intervene and help fucked up kids and and them from having criminal records for being fucking stupid.

      1. Read the article again. Soliciting is now only a misdeamor so the police have to catch the jon in the act for them to be able to charge him

        1. Right, but soliciting is different than the actual act (just how murder and attempted murder have different consequences). Jons can still be charged with solicitation if they do anything to further the act – which I assume means giving money, going to a motel, etc.

        2. yes but soliciting in most states is a felony with a hefty sentence attached to it. Making it a misdemeanor means at most the jon gets a slap on the wrist and doesn’t even have to register as a sex offender i believe

      2. its funny when people assume its only fucked up kids doing this. no it might start with one, then everyone hears about how there were no consequences for that person and they start thinking why the fuck shouldn’t I get some easy money too. they don’t think about std’s and shit like that to them this is simply risk free rivers of cash.

        1. Laws by their very nature have to be based on broad generalizations. I think it is safe to assume that it is mostly fucked up kids doing this. There are very few 16 year old hookers from good backgrounds just looking to make a few dollars for a new iphone.

        2. and your source for this is? and when they face 0 consequence those kids incentives aren’t going to change? so even if you were correct about right now why would a change in the law not alter behavior?
          I think you are underestimating what happens in that seedy area. that thee are “good” kids that have pimped out other good kids. life isn’t an episode of svu

        3. Agreed. Its the same concept as how adults used to use kids to commit murders and traffic drugs before they could be charged as adults.

        4. His source is reasonableness. It is reasonable to assume that the average kid has no interest in turning tricks.

        5. your suggesting that kids that are going to be fucking anyway aren’t going to think I might as well get paid for this instead of slinging burgers or doing some other bs job for fuck all money.
          no your right kids are dump as shit. the average kid also never thinks about selling drugs or doing other illegal shit to get more money. give your fucking head a shake

        6. And ur a moron if u think kids ain’t Fucking or won’t take money for it. Netflix easy a for fucksakes

        7. You need to up your reading comprehension skills. Nobody claimed this. What we’re saying is that the average kid has no interest in becoming a prostitute.

        8. Ya if it’s illegal. If there is 0 consequences u think that analysis doesn’t change.

        9. So you think that the reason that your neighbour doesn’t come round to your house and stove your head in is because its illegal? Or is it because he is a normal person who doesn’t harbour malicious ill will towards you or anyone else?

        10. U must be old or retarded. Look at the butches stripping “for college” or sugar baby phenomenon u think that only occurs to them when they turn 18

        11. I think its retarded to suggest that somebody’s age has anything to do with this argument. You think that “stripping for college” is a recent phenonmena? Besides which you seem to be struggling to focus on your own argument. We’re talking about child prostitutes not strippers.
          I’m disturbed by the thought of a “butch” stripper. What kind of strip clubs do you go to?

        12. ya hilarious that you cant diagnose a typo. no it isn’t a recent phenomenon moron. that’s the point bitches know its easier to make money doing that then working at fucking Applebys. girls too young to strip know that shit to. but now it aint illegal for them to fuck for money so they gunna start doing that instead of waiting to strip or be a fucking sugar baby.
          but its fine your first line tells me what I need to know you somehow think its only shit women do those things. but it aint they all do or all think about it. good bitches will drive outta town to do strip contests so they friends don’t find out at home. they will start turning tricks to get money. there is literally no reason for them not to.

        13. Yeah mate I have never met any decent strippers. You’ll have to tell me where to find these well-adjusted strippers.
          You seem to be confused. If stripping through college isn’t a recent phenomenon why does my age have anything to do with the argument?
          You obviously live in a world where the only thing that matters is money no matter what you do to get it. You might do anything for money but trust me the rest of us have standards. If you can’t think of a reason why a girl wouldn’t be a hooker then the problem is with you. Besides that, prostitution is legal in Holland. If there is no reason for women not to be hookers explain to me why every woman in Holland isn’t a hooker.

  3. So round up the homeless and rich guys are above the law? Sign me up.

    1. Every time someone acts like rich people being above the law is anything other than the norm of humanity for thousands of years, the historian in me dies a little.

      1. But only Trump is different – he’s a nice family guy who wants to be the hero of the working class people.

        1. I am not sure if you are kidding or not. Tough call with you. If you are being sarcastic then HA! if not….woah boy.

      2. And if it wasn’t riches it was the guy with the biggest army. Hell even back in caveman times I bet you the dude who bagged the most chicks and kicked the most ass was the dude with the biggest club

      3. Right? As if it is come grave injustice that comes a shock to the system and “must be remedied now!”
        Hey look, sure, you don’t like living under elites. I don’t either. Nobody does.
        So if you hate it so much, start working on making your family one of the elite families. Maybe you won’t hit Rockefeller levels of scratch, but maybe your son or grandson will. The elite class, just like the poor, middle and upper classes are rather fluid and subject to whim. The “ten families that rule the world” thing, well, it wasn’t always the same 10 families, and somebody at some point sat down and said “You know, I’m tired of those fucking Plantagenets getting all of the hot chicks. Fuck them! I’m going to work to supplant them forever!” And he did.

        1. Actually no. Class is not as fluid as we like to believe. The class you’re born into is likely the class you (and your descendants) will remain in.

        2. There hasn’t been a hierarchy of “the same families!” over us for 10,000 years. While you can’t just up and apply for Elite status, go to an interview wearing nice clothes and expect to be granted Elite citizenship, you can go out and try to start your own empire today. You may never see Elite, nor your son, but if you keep passing down the torch and idea, eventually one of your grandsons will.
          My family was displaced a long time ago from that lofty circle, so I know it can happen.
          Your statement is even more questionable, as “class you were born into” means almost nothing in the U.S. If you’re lower middle class or even just barely above poverty level at birth, you sure as hell you can work and move yourself up, as certain as the sun rises each day. You just have to get over that “I failed, so I’m going to be depressed and blame the world for my failure” thing and you’re golden.

        3. That pretty much sums up my personal philosophy. If men spent less time complaining about how unfair it is that rich people are rich and how much their own life sucks, and spent more time doing something to become one of the rich people…
          …fuck that. I’m going to get fat, play Xbox and complain about income inequality.

        4. Anyone can move up, but not everyone can move up, and most lack the skills, resources, or talent to successfully make the jump.

        5. My family once had the opportunity, around the beginning of the 1900s. I could’ve been the scion of a billion-dollar estate. Piss-poor management, lack of vision, and greed ended costing my family a massive opportunity that only benefited their lawyers.
          Even my grandparents, who died completely dirt poor, could’ve made a killing off land out west with a modicum of foresight.

    2. Generally, sure. But I have this notion that if they want to camp out in the middle of a public park (a real public park, not two blocks of grass and a few trees like in the cities), for example, Yellowstone or somewhere, then really, just leave them the fuck alone. There are cases where normal “mountain men” dudes who, in 1890 would be seen as normal back woods types, are now confronted by park rangers with guns, 110 miles from any known light bulb out in the middle of the woods, and have their semi-permanent tents torn down and them evicted out of the woods and onto the road to basically starve. That’s just awful, I’m not a particular fan of huge spans of “public parks” to begin with, but declaring several state’s size acreage as “parks” is absurd and frankly criminal. Leave the backwoods types alone, they’re not “homeless”, but parks services makes them that way.
      Not sure why I went down that tangent.
      As to cities, well, that’s y’all’s problem. We have homeless but nowhere near the level of you folks. I think soup kitchens and flop houses solve the problem in this part of the nation.

      1. Oh I totally agree with the park thing. I mean if someone wants to camp out in a national park and isn’t being a total cunt nose and doing things that endanger others I say go for it. But camping out in Grammercy Park or even Central Park is much different. That is the equivalent to camping out on a college campus at best and often times the equivalent to camping out near a mailbox. I think anyone should be free to go into the middle of nowhere and sleep there. I can’t understand why in the world they would want to, but sure, go for it. I have never encountered any “praks services” so sitcoms and Bullwinkle cartoons are my only real frame of reference here. Let’s settle on, if I can walk through it as a short cut to walking to work people ought not live there.
        There was a good 10-15 year period here where seeing a homeless person was a rarity. I don’t know what the government did with them, but I don’t really care. I have no idea why we can’t hunt them for sport. Our current mayoral administration has done its best to turn the city backwards, but there is no way this clown isn’t on his way out.

        1. Right, that’s why I stipulated “real” public park, as in, the kind of places that occupy 1/3 of a state or whatever. Nobody wants Hobo Bob camping in the middle of the public square on the circle of grass that’s in the middle of a roundabout.
          I’ve just come across a couple of stories the last few years regarding this strong arming of lone men living literally 100 miles from even city glow on the horizon, so far out that you’d need a special team of investigators and a lot of CPU power just to begin to find these guys. It’s absurd. If Uncle Cletus wants to set up a log shack 100 miles from a city in any direction on “public park” land, then he should be able to. Near the front of the place where the tourists go? No. But again, 100 miles from any living breathing human being? Why not? That didn’t used to be “park” it used to be “free soil in America” where anybody could stake a claim. Making these men homeless is criminal and borderline evil.
          I’ve dealt with park services before, always a nice encounter, generally decent, caring folks out here anyway. We’ll chat a bit, they’ll ask what kind of gun I’m carrying on my hip, we’ll talk a bit about nearby ranges and shooting competitions then we’ll part ways.

        2. leave bob smith alone! BTW I think I just got a nervous twitch even thinking about a place such as the one Uncle Cletus lives in. Shit, I don’t even go to queens.

        3. You’d go into spasms of fear if you could see some of the “cabins” I’ve stayed in during my lifetime. I don’t mean military stuff where it’s always scary, I mean voluntarily went to and stayed at. No lights, and like one window and you had to make sure to dust all of the hanging spider webs from the ceiling and the corners on the floor and ceiling. And under the rope beds. You always bring some lights, a cooler or two filled with beer and then spend most of your time *outside* the cabin near the fire with a hot broad because being inside the cabin was kind of medieval.

        4. Sure they are a nice bunch but they are hiding some dark secrets. I’ve seen a bigfoot myself and then some.

          I’ve seen a whole lot of things that officially do not exist so this does not surprise me one bit.
          I’ve had my run ins with certain gov types…some with special access who one should never piss off.
          While elements of our gov do have the ships required to abduct people easily I doubt most of these are them.
          I know for a fact the meta-stealth was entering early-mid-late testing in the early to mid 90’s on the ships so it does not correlate with so many older cases.
          Certainly it was working even in the eighties to a lesser degree of advancement.

        5. Part of it is; “they” want you to buy land. Which is to say, take out a loan from the bank.
          They want everyone in the system, working for them.

  4. This will become the norm everywhere because almost all of the top politicians are either pedophiles or homosexual, often both.
    Cabalist bankers empower a class of perverts who they control through blackmail. Pedophile rings operate as a system of blackmail, enforcing conformity to the NWO. All members of the establishment are vetted by security services. Hidden cameras are placed at child sex parties to gather incriminating material.
    But it’s nothing new. It goes back to ancient Greece where teenage boys, for about 7-8 years, were entrusted to a state-appointed mentor who submitted them to anal coitus twice daily while they had to remain stoical.
    Only those who had the ability to impart their «gnosis» (improperly translated as knowledge) by anal transmission (mere oral transmission of knowledge was mocked off as incomplete and giving right to no power) could become mentors.
    Hence why ancient Greece is being named as the cradle of the Western civilization.
    p.s. Hitler was a homosexual puppet too and even liked to be shat on his chests.

    1. It’s crazy how the elite throughout time have always managed to get into degenerate acts such as that throughout history. It’s not even just a western civilization thing either. I guess idle hands really are the devils play things

      1. Idle hands indeed. In some parts of the world this saying goes as – when the devil got bored he fucked his own children.

      1. Mussolini would force his political prisoners to wear white suits and then march them through the streets after he force-fed them laxatives.

      2. Actually the SA were a bunch of literal faggots, and their founder, Ernst Röhm was a stupendous faggot:

        One American journalist later wrote, “[Röhm’s] chiefs, men of the rank of Gruppenfuehrer or Obergruppenfuehrer, commanding units of several hundred thousand Storm Troopers, were almost without exception homosexuals.”[6] In 1931, the Münchener Post, a Social Democratic newspaper, obtained and published Röhm’s letters to a friend discussing his homosexual affairs.
        Hitler was aware of Röhm’s homosexuality. At this point they were so close that they addressed each other as du (the German familiar form of “you”).
        No other top Nazi leader enjoyed that privilege, and their close
        association led to rumors that Hitler himself was homosexual.[6] Röhm was the only Nazi leader who dared to address Hitler by his first name “Adolf” or his nickname “Adi” rather than “mein Führer.”[5]

        Röhm and his butt-buddies were the primary targets of the Night of the Long Knives.

    2. Politicians are pedophiles for blackmail purposes, but if pedophilia is acepted, then you can’t blackmail anymore

      1. If they want to make it mainstream it only shows how far the society has degenerated morally.

      2. It is somewhat the other way around. The goal is the legalisation and normalisation of jewishness, i.e sexual abuse of kids, and the politicians are blackmailed to further that goal. Judges are now giving 6 month sentences to pedophiles, and claiming their hands are tied as politicians/ legislators define sentence limits.

      1. Quite a few. He keeps them numbered, in the event of an emergency.

    3. “p.s. Hitler was a homosexual puppet too and even liked to be shat on his chests.”
      I heard something similar – but that Hitler was only onto chicks, he suposedly wanted his niece or female cousin to shit on him.

      1. He liked to be surrounded by pretty young girls but never consummated these relationships sexually.

      2. You also heard, from the same bullshit artists, that 6 million of them died because of Hitler. Jews are compulsive liars and shysters. Why repeat their garbage?

        1. Back to the original topic – I haven’t seen and read any hard eveidence he had a piss and shit fetish so one does have to wonder.

      1. The Greek boy love thing is. The rest, well, you have to really take with a grain of salt and maybe verify from other sources.

        1. anyone who’s morally compromised needs to redeem himself/ herself before allowed to take a position of virtuous indignation.

    4. Have there been any examples of these politicians who do step out of line and, thus, sex videos being released to the public, effectively ruining their career?

    5. I wonder which (((people))) who also have an obsession with shit, would make up a claim like that about Hitler? SMH. Why does everything jewish involve their sacred shit fettish?

      1. He was partly Jewish himself and worked closely with the Zionists for the creation of Israel – so there goes your theory.

        1. He wasn’t Jewish at all and the only “evidence” is that Hitlers mother worked for the Rothschilds and had an illegitimate son to them. Instead of being a conspiritard, why not argue based on facts not speculation? As for working with Zionists, he wanted Jews out and Israel is the natural choice. Who wouldn’t want Jews segregated to their own little fiefdom? The only problem is it failed and Jews won Ww2, and are now systematically destroying Western civilisation. Argue with facts or fuck off. Your don’t get to speculate and have it accepted as truth.

        2. Hitler order his father’s house to be bombed to the ground and the local parish cemetery was leveled to the ground too.
          Lots of high-ranking Nazi officials from Keppler circle were partly Jewish too. Goering was of partial Jewish ancestry. Goering was related to a Swiss-German banking family. That family had converted to Christianity in the 1400’s, and Goering was never classified as a “Mischling” (mixed-race).
          His mistress Eva Braun is also suspected as a crypto-Jew.

          What do you think are the chances of Hitler not knowing about these people?

        3. Goering was a communist before joining the NSDAP. They wanted him as he knew the jewish art of propaganda. It is impossible to organise politically in the West without massive Jewish freemasonic infiltration, as the TeaParty and Alt Right demonstrate. You still haven’t provided any evidence that Hitler was Jewish.

        4. There isn’t a direct documented evidence that has survived, apart from the classified information. But even what you just wrote serves as indirect evidence.
          The more you research the more clearer the picture gets.

        5. You have zero evidence and are now resorting to saying there is “indirect evidence” to cover your tracks. As for researching more, go and research some more then, as you don’t have a clear picture yourself, as you have no evidence to form a picture.

        6. I don’t expect anything from people, most people as yourself will not understand it not anyway. I simply state my opinion and leave it there hanging. I am not trying to convince anyone to my side.
          If you disagree with it you can argue in a civil manner without obscenities as you have done or you simply disregard it. I don’t mind an argument when the opposing side it worth it.
          What you’re doing is picking a fight which is sign of immaturity. Sort yourself out and then come back to argue. You’ve shown yourself not worthy.

        7. You made a statement, that Hitler was a kike. I asked you to prove it, you couldn’t, and now your last resort is to say I’m immature and starting an argument?
          Can you prove Hitler was jewish, either show evidence, or don’t reply, as you think having the last word makes you right…it doesn’t. You still haven’t shown any evidence Hitler was jewish.
          I’m waiting…

        8. Don’t be too hard on the old chap. Letting him indulge in his conspiracy theories makes him feel all warm and fuzzy inside.

  5. With the cost of college these days, i think this is a great way for high school girls (and boys) to start building up some funds and learn fiscal responsibility at a young age!

    1. To any feminists or reporters who stumble on this comment, this is what we at RoK like to call a “joke.”
      It’s satire, possibly thought experiment with a bit of devil’s advocacy, but not serious.

      1. joke? i know quite a few women who were “strippers” to get through college. To them it was a “liberating” experience

        1. In this context, considering how the law protects underage prostitutes, I thought it best to head off the nonsense that could easily be poured into the comment.
          That said, yeah, I’ve seen my share of college whores and strippers. Not a whole lot of “victim” going through their heads as they bring home a few hundred in gift cards or expensive “gifts”.

        2. Most of the ones that where strippers through college were whores in highschool and below. They just realized they could get paid for it.

        3. No, legally, high school and college are different. I checked. Minors are minors, and adults are adults. High school = minors (except the 18 year olds), adults are adults. My “day” has nothing to do with it.

        4. I test drove them in highschool realized most were a shitty make/model then passed it on to then next guy. Nobody has yet to call me for the Hoefax though

      2. joke my ass. I want to make sure these birds are a little broken in and know how to handle a dick by the time they come of age!

        1. feminists reports wont bother putting logic or brain power or discernment to this anyway. Putting a logical disclaimer for a feminist reporter is like explaining gravity to a lemming. If you are going to do the time, might as well do the crime.

        2. I guess I just do it to prove a point to myself. Every so often, I start taking things more seriously than they deserve. I write this shit, then a few hours later I start to think, “why the hell did I even think that needed to be said?”
          And then I get better.

      3. No joke here: poor people should hang themselves before bothering other people for free money. I support the anti-panhandling law.

        1. Amen, the amount of sob stories & begging I get hit with makes me want to ask them if I look like a mothafuggin ATM!

        2. Lets hope your wives don’t make a complaint about you sleeping at their house without permission.

        3. This is an incredibly harsh and unpopular sentiment and I agree 100%. Wel said.

        4. This statement, at least to me, is a much deeper thought than what it looks like on the surface. I don’t think I’ve thrown money at at a panhandler since I was a teenager.

        5. More popular than you think! Lazy cunts with signs at stoplights don’t make eye contact with anyone driving a pickup truck! They know..

        6. My modest proposal is that the homeless (>90% male) should just be arrested and taken to the slaughterhouse to be converted into plastic wrapped meal sized chunks of meat to feed the elite. What could be a better solution to the problem.

    2. I know of a strip club in Columbus catching a lot of flack in the 90s because they were passing out flyers to the incoming female freshmen. A parent picked one up and went to the dean (and press) about it.

        1. Ha. They found it on campus.
          A strip club and today’s univerisity have alot of simialaries in some ways.

      1. Was that In Kahoots or Columbus Gold? Those were the two biggie titty joints in the 90’s that I recall.

        1. When I was in college I think Kahoots had basically become the topless version of Hooters or Tilted Kilt. Girls still show their tits to strangers for money but they can still tell people (and themselves) they work as a “waitress.”

        1. “Yes”because he was worried the missus would find out he’s there twice a week because of those “late” meetings!

    3. It’s nothing they won’t learn at an Ipsissimus level when they go to college anyway, so why not predate it a few years early? Good call!

  6. A few years ago, CA passed prop 47, which made possession of certain drugs (like meth and under a gram, I believe) a misdemeanor instead of a felony. Since then our homeless population exploded. At least in NorCal. In the city I live in, 35% of the calls the police department responds to is related to the homeless population.
    So underage prostitution is cool.
    Being homeless is illegal.
    And fuck your AR15.

    1. I hate that AR15 rule with the “mini clip” and everything else to basically strip it down to shell of its former self…WTF, Gov Brown? This guy’s getting demented at the end here. As if thieves and thugs are going to even give half a shit as they build up their arsenal with existing and out-of-state gear…the law provides for *them* and hinders every decent, law-abiding citizen.

  7. how long would the homeless be incarcerated? I guess you can pay them 0.20/hr to make widgets, let the taxpayer pay for their upkeep. Friend told me the cost per inmate in NY once, really high, like $25-30k a year, I’ll ask him next time I talk to him. Sounds like a win-win situation for certain folks

    1. 25-30k per year? you nuts. Cost of keeping an inmate in new York is close to 200k/year

      1. maybe he said 250k a yr? That doesnt even include sex reassignment costs, which are now covered (Thx Governor Cuomo!)

      2. Yea, youre closer than I was- 168k/yr. 83% of which goes to staff salaries, benefits, and pensions

        1. that 168 number was from 2013. My “close to 200k” number was a guess based on rising costs of everything over a 5 year period.

  8. I thought the reason why prostitution is prohibited is due to exploitation of women (e.g. the prostitutes are victims). Punishing the prostitutes themselves, rather than the pimps, suggests that victimization of women is not the reason for prohibition.

    1. Of course it’s not the reason. Women pushed for the prohibition of prostitution because they didn’t want men to have the option of getting sex so easily.

      1. Bingo. A lot of it falls right back into the beady eyed Carry Nation types that were the shiny spear point of tyranny before women officially “came to power” in this nation.

    2. Where is my body my choice logic here? Easy obtainable sex decrees the SMV of women in general. That´s why women hate prostitutes and slut shame more other woman than men do. I wonder if this apply to male prostitutes, There is the same as much as boy prostitution as girls prostitution, You know because the degenerate sodomite like them young. But there is not the same equivalent in adult prostitution. But it´s seems that you can only be victim if you a woman.

  9. The Broken Windows crime solution used in NYC by Mayor Giuliani attacked the homeless hard and, in turn, along with cleaning up other quality of life issues, turned this city from war torn ghetto to a safe and wonderful place. You want to round up the homeless and execute them….fine by me. don’t forget the dope pushers, street walkers, graffiti artists and general vagrants. Everyone against the wall.

      1. Every bit of Tyranny stars with “incredibly effective” things. Once those are enabled and withstand judicial scrutiny then precedent has been set, upon which you might as well kiss any questions of Constitutionality good bye.
        I get the pragmatic view, and if I lived in war torn Bosnia in 1999 I might well not care if a bit of strong arming made my life better, but enabling things like warantless searches for pedestrians just going their own way in America is madness. It may be great for NYC but it sets a precedent that can (and eventually, will) be used outside of that area.
        Don’t confuse this with me giving a shit about thugs, vagrants, homeless, dope pushers and the rest of that rabble. I don’t. Personally if I lived in a world of Feelz, I’d go full Vlad the Impaler on them and smile at the end of the day at a job well done. But things like this matter, because of the damage they do *outside* of the war zones like 1981 NYC that they clean up.

        1. I get the difference between necessity in a major city and rules elsewhere. Despite all the problems, I am very much for stop and frisk for instance. Why? Because I lived in NY before it and lived in NY after it and the difference isn’t just that it is a safer city…it is a totally different city. When I grew up Taxi Driver was a realistic description of NYC not a dystopian fantasy land. I believe that it probably does damage to things outside the city, but I am ok with that.

        2. I believe that it probably does damage to things outside the city, but I am ok with that.

          That’s a myopic view. Flyover is pissed off enough already (ergo, Trump being elected). I don’t think I’d be particularly flippant about pissing us off even more. The words “big city” are spoken in the same dripping tones that you’d use when saying “Nazi Germany” in a war movie, out here.
          The “stop and frisk” thing could have been handled Constitutionally without even trying. Just start enforcing loitering laws and vagrancy laws. Ta da. Perfectly Constitutional. Setting a huge awful legal precedent that affects those of us out here though, not so good.

        3. Put a 0 after that 5 and then you’ll be on *my* suggestion from a post yesterday.

        4. I’m all for immigration, but the democrat ploy of throwing open the borders is plain nuts.

        5. I don’t mind immigration per se as a concept. I do mind post 1965 “let’s destroy white people” Ted Kennedy endorsed open borders crap. Put a stop to it for 50 years, all immigration, sort shit out, eject the radical “I want Sharia law in Idaho!” idiots and their spawn, then take a couple of decades to let things simmer down a bit and let people adjust to our nation without the continual influx of more people.

        6. It has to be sold as that at first, yes, every time actually. The dark clouds of Mordor don’t roll in one day and suddenly you’re living under Stalin. It takes time and a lot of buy in and “I see benefits from this, why resist” first.

        7. No dissgreement fom me.
          Accept the Irish. Fuck them. Even Ireland doesn’t want them. Biggest joke in Eire in the 80s, “whats Irelands biggest export? Their young!”

        8. Yeah, the tap needs to be temporarily shut off. Folks need to assimilate and integrate. Identity needs to be established.
          But anymore, I think it’s much too late for that. Entire enclaves of third world idiots and savages have already been established, and are spreading.

        9. Taking shoes off..
          No nail clippers.
          Water bottles.
          Always using cc

          Chip in hand, coming soon.

        10. I consider rural areas to be a shackle whereas what you call shackles I call the price of living in civilization. To each their own

        11. But it is. Find what you love out there. I found what I love. I don’t recommend it for everyone. It’s a big beautiful country with loads of different ways to live

        12. Stop and frisk has always been applied judiciously in my experience. I’ve never been stopped or frisked. I actually am a fan of the policy. If you look like a gang banger or a drug addict you will get searched.

        13. Did you ever notice the amount of American soldiers who volunteer for EOD (explosive ordnance disposal) are of Irish decent. Wonder where they go when their enlistment is up? Heh.

        14. I refuse to sacrifice liberty for security.

          Im very fucking far from ok with warrantless searches.
          Besides, scum usually get whats coming to them.

        15. Abstract causes like liberty don’t mean much to me. I enjoy living in civilization. We have rules here. If you want to live in the woods or a cave I am ok with that. I like it better here. World is full of choices. Everyone gets to make their own

      1. I didn’t need the graphs. I lived here. And murder rates is nothing. Even in good neighborhoods it was dangerous to walk down the streets. Even when there weren’t race wars (I got beat pretty good when Rodney king violently resisted arrest) it was simply dangerous. There was not a block in the city that didn’t have crack vials on the concrete. It was as simple as this: you could not leave your house every day of the week for a month straight without having violence threatened AT LEAST.

        1. Yeah, I know, wish I could find all the stats, saw that spreadsheet once, everything was up immensely in the late 80s/early 90s. I remember walking home from school, and some guy came out of the pj’s, either shot or stabbed, I dont know. Died later. I made my sis and I grilled cheese sandwiches when we got home. I do remember that

        2. It is crazy. The part that was craziest wasn’t that it was happening it is that seeing murders in the street wasn’t strange enough to phase us. lol.

        3. 70s seemed to be, at least from my repeated viewing of The Warriors, dirtier than the 80s or 90s…Mayor Koch found the money to scrub the graf off the subway trains in the 80s

        4. Koch laid the frame work but didn’t do dick and Dinkins pretty much let the city go to hell. It wasn’t until Rudy that the graffiti was really attacked. Seriously. Not like he said he was going to do it. He said he was going to do it and like 6 months later there was not a spot of graffiti on the subways. Koch was personable, but really terrible on crime. Typical bleeding heart anti police liberal. Dinkins…well, we might as well just have let the gangs patrol. The 70’s were bad. Especially because of the black outs in the late 70’s which I was a kid for. That was wild. But I would say that in my life time 1982-1992 were the worst years.

      1. call him what you want, he was the best thing to ever happen to this city.

        1. I thought he was like a timeless New York tourist attraction or something.

        2. To the tourists I think he is. I am a local. I’ve never been to the statue of liberty or the empire state building and I can count how many times I have been to times square on one hand–none of them by choice.

        3. What the hell? I thought life wasn’t worth living if one hasn’t seen the naked cowboy.

    1. There is a YT documentary about the homelessness in Vancouver, showing that they all have access to housing, food and clean clothes, and even housing advisors who can get them permenant housing. They all chose not to because the condition is no drugs in the house/ accomodation. Fucking scum.

      1. Either I saw that, read about it or someone here told me about it before….it is predictable yet deplorable.

  10. Going hard on beggars is the way!
    You can bet money they are collecting welfare, often living in subsidized housing, doing drugs and generally speaking lazy bags of shit.
    Most are mentally and physically capable of working but choose not to. Those that are not deserve State help.
    Ideally beggars would be tased once caught begging and clubbed on a second offence to be followed by hard labour with daily beatings to get the message accross.
    I’ve travelled to several 3rd world countries and there are far less beggars there than in the West. Rather telling that is!
    I’m tired of all these lazy shit heads dirtying up my downtown.

    1. Seriously dude? You can’t walk 3 feet in any given population area in Mexico without being mobbed by children beggars (who all work for a single person if you watch who they go back to). Beggars are rife in Mexico (a third world nation I believe).

      1. Never been to Mexico, been to India yes lots there including those who’ve had their backs broken as infants to make them better beggars but..horrible that was…
        But very few in Thailand, Malaysia, Phillipines, Cuba and Myanmar, one of the poorest countries in the world, only one small child in two weeks go figure..
        I gave money to a guy that had leprosy in Thailand but otherwise try not to encourag the practice..
        there are of course more beggars in toursit areas obviously working for “someone” so best not to give..

        1. The only thing that would stop them from doing it is refusing to give those who mutilate their children money or make it impossible to do so.

      1. HA! Instead of looking at Niagara’s comment which you are responding to I looked at the comment directly above yours by Duncan and thought…wow, bem is one fucked up cat

    2. Mexican dude here, we have a plague of homeless beggars here you find one in every traffic light asking for money. As
      @ghostofjefferson:disqus stated the kids work for some dude who enslave them, Some are both child prostitutes and beggars.

      1. In some countries, you can rent kids to beg for you. You get to beat them if they don’t make enough money.

      2. Chichen Itza is one of the worst places on Earth surely for begging. Never seen anything like it, though poor-assed La Paz (Bolivia) comes a close second. I must have heard “un dollar” 5000 times.

        1. And they are like depicted in south park. The same dude ask you for money twice with the same lame excuse. I used to work in the center of the city which is full of beggars, when I went to buy something to drink. 5 dudes ask me for money, then the same 5 guy ask me again when I returned to my work in the same street in the same spot, They even ask you again even if you already gave them money. They got offended if you give them food because almost all want to buy alcohol. They also ask for cigarettes and got offended if you don´t want to. In the traffic light they try to clean your windshield but leave it worst, and do it even you tell them no, and some people feel guilty and give them money for it, I don´t, They are outside of store and parking lots and they clean all your car exterior without asking for permission even if the car is clean already those fucker ruin my recently waxed car with their dirty rags. They are outside of restaurants and supermarkets asking for money for ahem security for your car, Aqui se lo cuidamos jefe, and if you don´t pay well accidents happen. Say goodbye to one turn light. Or your car battery, They charge for public parking slots also (franeleros). They are a pest.

      3. Fellow Mexican here. I’ve seen this a bit myself. They make good money. Even the ubiquitous Indian ladies that everyone refers to a Marias can make enough to buy themselves brand new Dodge Rams.

        1. HAHAHAA yes! I saw one of the maria with a big fat roll of dollars that she then proceed to hide in her boobs. Those women have great income because they look indigenous and talk with a very indian accent, every person give them money, no joking everyone, and they have the children in Rebozo and more people give them money, Some of them stand there and don´t move until you give them something, or talk and talk and talk almost whispering until you give them money. I ignore them. And some of them are very rude and they attitude of puppy eyes please help change the moment you put the money in their hand, “aahhhh saqueze!” or if you refuse to. Those women have like 15 children and start fucking like at 12 years old, you can find some indigenous parents that sell their daughters for prostitution or slavery. The fathers “Joses” all of them are alcoholics and spend all their money in beer and cheap whores. You see them with their sombreros with the old, ugly whores outside the whore hotels, the cheapest whores, they charge like 15 dlls for sex.

      4. Exactly so never give. People don’t realize their contributing ot a problem.
        Ideally those running the rings would be lynched but alas that’s not how the world works unfortunatley..

    3. “I’ve travelled to several 3rd world countries and there are far less beggars there than in the West.”
      Depends on what countries you go to. The entire Taj Mahal is surrounded by islands of trash, replete with beggars, freaks and mutants. Petra is littered with panhandlers and child-beggars. Same with many other places I’ve been.
      On the other side, there are 3rd world countries where you’ll never see beggars. I have a suspicion one country I lived in was rounding them up and… doing something most likely untoward with them.

      1. Been there lots around the Taj…
        But other places in SEA including Myanmar almost none.
        More downtown in my little post industrial town..
        Lazy sacks of shits who already collecting assistance etc..

    4. I once had some dirty hobo harass my customers for spare change as they came in my shop. If a down-on-his-luck drunkard wants to sit in some dark quiet corner with his hat on the floor and an appropriately shamefaced expression, fine. But I won’t have anyone putting off my customers.
      If I’d asked him to go somewhere else, he would’ve told me he was technically on public land and I therefore had no power to order him away from his spot. If I’d tried to physically move him on I would have risked being done for assault. A call to the police would result in them turning up the next day, if they turned up at all; they would just as likely have given the same spiel about him being on public land and therefore breaking no laws.
      So I took a different tack. Whenever I saw him harassing a customer, I came outside and loudly offered him £50, a hot meal, a can of beer and a place to sleep for the night if he’d spend the rest of the afternoon doing some shelf-stacking and cleaning. He just politely refused my offer, citing some bullshit ‘bad back’ excuse. But my trick worked; anyone who had been considering tossing some loose change his way on the basis of his hard-luck sob story decided against giving him any charity when they saw him refusing a reasonable offer of fair wages in exchange for a day’s honest work.
      The first few times he thought my offer was based on a combination of my desires to obtain cheapish labour and feel charitable. But after a little while, he twigged what I was up to: cockblocking his attempts at begging. He sodded off somewhere else when he realised he wouldn’t get any easy money that day.
      I would have upheld my end of the bargain had he taken me up on the offer, by the way. £50 plus food & drink is a wee bit more than the going rate for half a day’s unskilled labour, but still quite reasonable. I also have a spare room with a camp bed in which I can lock from the outside. Leave a bucket in there so he can take a piss and he can kip overnight without me worrying that I’ll wake up to find all my valuables have gone walkies. Might not be the Hilton, but it’s better than sleeping under some bridge.
      But the truth is that these beggars aren’t looking for a fair day’s wage in exchange for a hard day’s work; they want everything in life to come free and easily.

      1. “But the truth is that these beggars aren’t looking for a fair day’s wage in exchange for a hard day’s work; they want everything in life to come free and easily.”
        Right! Here we have these losers pushing stolen shopping carts that will spend hours every day digging out beer cans, liquor bottles etc out of peoples recycling bins and taking them back. I figure they make enough for a 6 pack if they’re lucky in 4 to 6 hours.
        Retarded for sure but they simply don’t want to work lazy c***s!

      2. I have a similar story when I was a kid working nights at a petrol station. A beggar came in as I sat alone late at night asking me if I had change. I looked at him for awhile and told him if he did a duty of mine, I would pay him 5 bucks. It was a 10 minute job of sweeping the lot clean. At that rate I figured it was a good deal, making 3x the rate I was. He accepted and I watched him mosey about sweeping up butts and garbage. I checked the lot and he did a great job. I handed him his money. I told him to come back anytime he wanted and I would have something for him. He came again the next night and this time I gave him 10 dollars, heaping on the praise hoping to raise his spirits.
        That was the last time I ever saw him.

    5. When you go past the projects in my city, the carports are full of BMWs, Benz’s and giant luxury SUVs.

      1. Same here there’s a government housing project near my business supplier and the employees tell me what pieces of shit the residents are and many drive nice cars. They do nthing but cause trouble and there’s only 20 townhouses in the whole thing.

  11. Democrats have made the dregs of society their political base, the perverts, the lazy, the corrupt and all of the immoral.

    1. ” if there’s grass on the pitch let’s play!!!! ”
      I would change this to “if there is the feasibility of grass on the pitch let’s play” I have a strict, “if there is grass on the pitch she needs to handle that before I touch her” rule

  12. Is the purpose of this law to turn beggars into hookers? Cause that’s what it sounds like.

  13. Although I am not surprised, those turd lickers from CA pissed me off yet again. (pardon my language)

  14. More evidence to boot California from the union, frankly. I know there are some scenic bits in the north, but other than that the entire state is a cancerous wart on the ass of real America.

  15. Glad to be in India where being a faggot is a crime .now as for pedos they should be offered sympathy and choice whether they want a .22 or a .357 or a good old fashioned machete

      1. There are villages in India where they pass around one woman as a human sex toy for 10 guys. It’s fucked up.

        1. Comes from families putting the onus on male heirs. Well, now you’ve got 10 males to 1 female. Oops.

        1. And after all these problems in rural areas .our country has the same liberal media just read times of India .we actually got lgbt parades demanding for acceptance.seriously if libtards succeed India will be more fucked than ever

        1. I really don’t know. I should have said “Depends on the age of consent by state”. I don’t have the list as I really have never had a reason to ever check it.

        2. I know most guys here are stuck on 18 year olds, but I think 23-28, maybe with a few “beat the odds” childless early 30 year olds, is the sweet spot. Given health, nutrition, exercise and surgery these days, it’s not hard for a woman with good genetics to stay pre-wall looking long after 24 (which seems absurdly low for “past the wall” to me anyway). When I start seeing girls in the “Is she or isn’t she legal” realm, I don’t think that I’d chance it if I were a single guy.

        3. I am with you 100%. There is something really outrageous about the skin of an 18 or 19 year old girl that I will never get over, but even I need something in the head other than my cock to keep me interested. 23-28 is the ideal for me. 34 is a hard cut off.

        4. as far as the wall I call it 28. I think sexual prime is 10 years. So starting from AOC clock is ticking. It doesn’t mean a little bit past the prime will kill you. We have all rolled the dice and asked whether the sell by and the eat by are the same. But prime is 18-28 (I have not decided if the 28 is lowered for places with a lower AOC but I do not think so)

        5. 18 year olds nowadays are completely in-fucking-sufferable. Don’t wish that misery on anyone.

        6. Got to keep in mind, most of the guys on here are college aged. Jail bait is not out of the realm when you are talking with a 22 year old.
          I honestly think there should be an age gap caveat when you are talking about guys in their late teens or early 20’s, something like three years. A 14 year old doing it with a 17 year old is legal, but two years later it is not? Doesn’t make sense.

        7. really for me it is a function of their lifestyle. Some druggie slut is untouchable by 25, but if they are living a clean healthy life, they are attractive clear into their late 30’s

        8. Agreed. I am seeing a girl now whose life’s pretty much consists of exercise, skin care, working at a wine bar and fucking me stupid. She drinks but not to excess. No drugs. No cigs. She will be a stunner for years

        9. I was joking of course. Yes I agree with you on the age that women reach their peak beauty.

        10. What do you care what she will look like in years ahead?
          Arent you just going to drop her in a couple weeks?

        11. Yes, but I can tell she lives a clean life. It doesn’t matter to me if she hits the wall hard, that’s true. But when you can really see how beautiful and healthy they are it’s nice.

        12. And definitely don’t risk it on sites like Omegle or Periscope. They’ve become a Mecca for attention starved teen girls who want you to watch them give a sex show.

        13. I believe the lowest is 14. Most common: 16. Some states have Romeo-Juliette laws, where consent varies depending on the difference in age.

    1. Yes it is, the point of the law is to keep minors who were potentially taken advantage of from being prosecuted, it has no effect on the adult.

        1. I got the same impression as “Andrew” here. I’m in California and doubt this law was angling to create as many loopholes as described in the article.

        2. Relieved I’m not the only one who saw this in the interpretation of the law. Maybe the author should have consulted an expert in CA law before finishing off the article.
          I’m not a legal expert but sensed some creative license or even contrivance in the article’s interpretation.

        3. My point is that it remains illegal to have sex with minors. As such, adults will still go to jail for having sex with child prostitutes.

  16. I think the system alwways unofficially treats all hookers above or below the age of 18 to be victims. The Johns, however…. much different story.

    1. I mentioned it earlier this week that it is legal in Toronto to solicit sex, but not to purchase.
      So prostitution is empowering, but the women are still victims?

      1. Same policy in Sweden apparently – oh wait…. the Swedes have a new stipulation: if the guy buying the sex is an islamic immigrant then it’s ok for him to buy it, or not buy it – just rape her and toss her severed head in the dumpster.

      2. it sounds like the most honest law Canada has. Hell, at least you know where you stand.

  17. I don’t see why the law was passed. I mean, I see the logic in making sure that children who are victims of sex trafficking are not prosecuted for prostitution, but was that ever happening anyways? I also wonder how many shrewd 16-17 year old hookers will realize they can hook with impunity, not afraid to go to the police if a customer doesn’t pay or beats her up. They wouldn’t even need pimps because now they can just go to the cops.
    I’m not one of those pro-degeneracy libertarians who thinks that every horrible thing should just be legalized and taxed, but when it comes to prostitution, aren’t we past that? Girls fuck strangers for free on tinder. But if they fuck guys off of craigslist for money, that’s not okay? Granted, outlawing prostitution helps send the message that sucking dicks for money is unacceptable. We don’t want to normalize that by legalizing it. But fucking tons of different guys for free has been normalized enough that what’s really the harm?

    1. Wanting to allow nature to take its course and weed out the stupid is not the same thing as wanting degeneracy. Remove your beloved “social safety net” and nearly everything libertarians want legalized would only be done by the fringes of society out of fear of failing and not having somebody there to catch you.
      I’m all about letting idiots fail and die in a gutter or under a bridge. Could weed out a lot of stupid from society.

      1. That would be great if that’s how it actually worked. Yes, certain policies, like welfare, cause more problems because they remove some of the incentive to work. But not all policies are like that. Take heroin, for instance. If we legalized it, we would have more junkies and all the negative externalities that go along with that. More muggings and burglaries so that junkies can get money to buy drugs. More junkies pimping out their own children so they can get money for drugs. And overall, a less productive citizenry. Not all laws are there to protect the dysfunctional people from themselves, preventing Darwinism to do its thing. Some laws are there to protect us FROM the dysfunctional.

        1. Yeah, and if we allow people to carry guns it will be like the Wild West in the streets. I hear that every time pro-gun legislation comes up in the Statehouse. Never seems to pan out.
          I’ve heard so many breathless panic situations in my lifetime that I’m a bit skeptical of just about any breathless panic situation described to me.
          As I recall, prior to the WOD, there wasn’t a whole lot of what you’re describing going on.
          As to protecting us, that’s why you should carry firearms. Muggings are in short supply in heavily armed states.

        2. I lived in a community with an arms mandate. One of the nicest places in the country.

        3. Muggers don’t wanna mug people who might be carrying- because criminals respond to incentives. But they don’t respond to the incentive of prison for drug possession?

        4. Muggers soon mug the wrong people when guns are plentiful. A bullet to the face ends a criminal career much faster than expecting an 82 IQ thug to think more than 90minutes into the future. If prison isn’t supposed to be a disincentive to crime, it’s a storehouse for criminals with the hope of keeping them out of decent people’s liveable until they get too old to commit more crimes.

        5. The difference though is that more people see drug possession and use as a victimless non-crime, as opposed to mugging someone.
          All soft drugs should be legal and regulated, and all hard drugs should be decriminalized. At least in the case of the latter, most of the problem would die off.

      2. I like this. There has always be an incredibly small majority that were either talented enough or wealthy enough who could get away with being total fuck offs. It is a low single digit percent. They will always exist. Take away social safety net though and the ones who don’t have the chops to do it and survive will just die out.

        1. I have long said that the cause of crime in the black community is welfare. Indian reservations and trailer trash parks are the same. Take it away and the men have to go back to work to support those little bastards they spawned.

        2. yup. The worst of them will devour one another inside a generation and we will see poor black men like the ones who worked the trains or the high end hotels back in the 20’s who beat the fear of god and love of education into their kids.

        3. While we’re waiting all we will get is “more social housing”, “more government cheese”, “the rich get richer”,” more taxes”. I just hope Trump puts an end to much of it. I know, maybe too much to ask for. There’s always hope.

    2. “because it isn’t about sex it is about power” (I need to go vomit in my mouth now)

    3. This could also open up johns to being victims of extortion. What’s to stop a prostitute from going to the cops and saying that someone who did pay up didn’t do so? There’s no receipt or anything like that.
      This sounds like a feminist wet dream. They’d never support legalizing prostitution and regulating it as a legitimate business, as that would take that power away.

  18. Tinder should just add a pay-for-play option already. Let’s just cut to the chase.
    16-20 year olds = 300/hour
    20-25 year olds = 220/hour
    25-30 year olds = 160/hour
    30+ = Pay what you can
    Seriously though… California has overtaken Toronto as the most retarded SJW capital of the world. Congratulations you win.

    1. Mcdonald’s should acquire Tinder. I’d buy a happy meal for $224.99

  19. This was driven by the gay friendly libs in California. They have been trying to turn SF into queer disneyland for tourists for long time, HQ for NAMBLA.

  20. Don’t see anything in this law stating it it supercedes laws on statutory rape. Prostitution may be decriminalized, but it’s still illegal for an adult to fuck a minor.

    1. The article is extremely misleading. The context the law is dealing with is to keep minors who adults are taking advantage of from being charged for well… Being taken advantage of.

  21. The only thing this law does is indeed not making minors responsible for their own actions. Indeed, it treats a 17 year 364 days old person as if he or she were still a child.

    1. Idiots NEED to check ID, maybe even take a photo of it, but that’s a possible privacy issue.

      1. They should. However, parents should also keep their daughters in check. Not only are they a legal liability, but the fact that they might be on a porn video you might be watching right now and could potentially result in a minor pulling a Traci Lords could be a boner killer.

  22. If a minor begs for money, that’s illegal?
    If that minor sells sex for money, then it’s legal?
    WTF?? Am I missing something?

    1. Its not legal it means they wont go to jail. Conservatives seem to argue all the time that minors have “undeveloped brains” and can’t make decisions for themselves, if this is true, why would should they go to jail for nonviolent crimes like this?

        1. Its conservative in that its part of the existing set of power structures and institutions. By the way, Liberal and Conservative are not mutually exclusive.

  23. In other words any girl who get forced into a sex ring is just as criminal as the managers?

  24. Is the author of this article really this stupid? The bill is designed to keep minors who are being taken advantage of from being charged with a crime for being coerced by adults. Why would you think this is a bad idea?

      1. Yeah I did, and its just him rambling his misinterpretation of the legislation. It has nothing to do with allowing minors to be prostitutes.

        1. If you read it, then perhaps you did not understand his points, which I did.
          He made statements regarding how the law can be interpreted and the important distinctions between it’s claimed intent and what it does and does not criminalize. He had other points, but these are not the “meat and potatoes” of our discussion here.
          It’s important in the context that there are numerous examples currently in existence that show how somewhat similar laws often are applied in ways not necessarily reflective of the original claimed intent. One would have to be naive to believe everything claimed for a new law or bill like this.

        2. It doesn’t matter what some people who read ROK think the bill does, it matters what judges, magistrates, and lawyers think the bill does.

        3. You know that there are lawyers (confirmed) and maybe judges and magistrates who read rock yes?

  25. I’m sure the intent is to eventually make it so that all females are victims of prostitution and never perpetrators. Just as it is in Sweden, but this is overreaching for now.
    Eventually we’ll see Lolita’s dressed up a sluts, men will be charged with a crime if they dare look at them. The girl’s’ single mom parent will also be seen as a victim. So the state will make a boatload of money from fines on men.

  26. Any society that is degenerate enough to think that homosexual relationships should have same social standing as heterosexual ones will let ANYTHING happen because they have lost any understanding of nature.
    As usual the useful idiot bleeding heart liberals were used as muscle for the elite as the elite astutely identified gay marriage as being the perfect virtue signalling subject. I use it as a filtering device now -anybody who is actively pro it is an idiot to my mind.

  27. My suspicion is that its to protect the pimps. If there is no underage prostitution what are you going to charge the pimp with?

  28. So California is going to get whores who don’t have cunts that look like a pair of elephants ears slapping between their thighs like all white trash nowadays. So fucking what?

    1. Or in california 2 men marry legally, adopt male baby legally, dress the boy as girl legally, put the boy in gay pride parade as soon as he can walk legally, perform gender re-assignment surgery on the boy before he enters puberty legally, and then encourage him to sell his ass legally, and if ever questioned they can play the victim of homophobic culture legally.

  29. Al this fuss about something that was always normal in many parts of Europe. In the US ALL prostitution is criminal and I find that THAT
    is what’s abnormal. Whereas child prostitution is not legal in Europe either, I never heard that a child was punished when it is being pimped out and it seems all this new law says it that it is finally going to be like that in California as well. With other words, children who got pimped out used to be prosecuted in California and that’s the old ‘normal’ you want to keep?

    1. For example, when I was 14, girls my age were in “relationship” with guys old as 25. Super fucking weird even by then standards, can’t imagine doing that at my age of 23. But thing is, people and mostly boys then were mildly annoyed, as obviously, we had adversaries. One that had cars, could buy cigarettes and booze.

      1. In many parts of Europe it is perfectly normal to have an AOC of 14 – 16. France for example has 15. It is feminazis who have raised the AOC by incremental steps from as low as 12 in the late 1800s or even no AOC to the unreasonable high of 18 in the USA. It is feminazis who love to shame old men who like teen girls and I ignore what feminazis want or like.

        1. Reaction to why no one wants to bang feminists. Same like fat girls like to cockblock their hotter girl friends.

  30. If we follow Roosh V.’s logic, this should reduce underage prostitution. Fathers will prevent their daughters from dressing up as sluts. Single moms will not let their daughters be the total sluts they were.
    What should happen is throw the girl’s parents in jail for not supervising her. But it is more lucrative to collect big fines from the johns. California has a massive pension debt to pay off. Follow the money that is how to understand this.

  31. What is happening in California is simply an experiment. Soon it will spread to rest of the MidWest states.

  32. I think Bob Smith is misreading the bill. It doesn’t require catching someone in the act of having sex with a prostitute, in order for him to get charged. The john just has to do something more than say, “Sure, I’ll give you money for sex.” For example, if they agreed on a time and place to meet, and he showed up, that would be enough.
    I knew a guy who got busted in that exact way. He met a girl on Craigslist, he agreed to pay for sex, and as he was about to leave to meet her, she said, “By the way, I’m 17; is that okay?” When he showed up, it turned out to be a sting operation, and he ended up in federal prison, probably because the fact that he used the Internet to set up the meeting made it interstate commerce, which gave the feds jurisdiction.
    It is true, though, that feminists would like to consider underage prostitutes victims rather than offenders, and make them eligible to receive massive amounts of restitution (like in the Jared Fogle case). As the article points out, though, they could still end up in state custody as “children in need of services,” so it’s not like they’d be totally getting away with it.

    1. I’ll bet you “knew a guy.” Your federal prison butt-buddy, Nathan, when you were serving time for threatening to kill POTUS, no doubt.

        1. And did he enjoy beating women and sleeping with relatives as much as you do?

  33. Well California has sunk to a new low, even for California. I’m so thankful my children are not in school jere, nor do the live in this stink hole of a State. One more month and i, my wife and our company will be out of here as well. I hope this State Does withdraw from the United States, I’ll get to watch them sink in their own stupidity, hell their already broke.

  34. Underage sex is still illegal though. Why should paying be so much more criminal than not?

  35. “In actuality, California’s new pedophile-friendly bill does not specifically legalize child prostitution—it
    merely takes away virtually all of the criminal penalties that a
    consenting minor child under the age of 18, and a consenting adult over
    the age of 18, might incur for engaging in the practice.”
    False. This statement is wrong on many levels. First, the bill decriminalizes prostitution for those under 18, not for those over 18 that solicit prostitutes. They can be still be charged for soliciting prostitutes. They will also likely be charged with the much more serious crime of unlawful sexual intercourse with a minor, which can be a felony.
    SECTION 261-269
    261.5. (a) Unlawful sexual intercourse is an act of sexual
    intercourse accomplished with a person who is not the spouse of the perpetrator, if the person is a minor.
    For the purposes of this section, a “minor” is a person
    under the age of 18 years and an “adult” is a person
    who is at least 18 years of age.
    (b) Any person who engages in an act of unlawful sexual
    intercourse with a minor who is not more than three years
    older or three years younger than the perpetrator, is
    guilty of a misdemeanor.
    (c) Any person who engages in an act of unlawful sexual
    intercourse with a minor who is more than three years younger than the perpetrator is guilty of either a misdemeanor or a felony, and
    shall be punished by imprisonment in a county jail not exceeding one year, or by imprisonment in the state prison.
    (d) Any person over the age of 21 years who engages in an act of
    unlawful sexual intercourse with a minor who is under 16 years of age is guilty of either a misdemeanor or a felony, and shall be punished
    by imprisonment in a county jail not exceeding one year, or by
    imprisonment in the state prison for two, three, or four years.”

Comments are closed.