re: #109 KGxvi

Under the previous version of the law, both parties (the prostitute and the john) were criminally liable. Under this version, if the prostitute is a minor, they are not criminally liable, but may be adjudged a dependent of the court and taken into protective custody.

The internal wingnut logic goes something like this: they used to send the little slut to jail for selling her whore body on the streets, now they don’t, err goes, child prostitution is now legal in California

The California penal code states that the age of consent is 18 (though there are some civil appellate cases that say someone under the age of 18 may give consent, it - like most things involving teenage sexuality (for lack of a better word) - is complicated). Combined with California contract law regarding minors entering into contracts, it actually makes sense to say a minor shouldn’t be liable in these situations. My guess is that this is meant to protect minors who are forced into prostitution but will likely also serve to protect those who choose to do so.

Similar mindset to those who jail women for being raped… .