Hypersexualization

I bring excellent news for all teh wimminz and cuck-cucks out there, this time from the computer security division of life.

It seems that I am very far behind the curve on this one: the trend to control your sex-toys via low-power (and insecure) Bluetooth technology. What's pictured is the discreet anal version for teh wimminz to use, controllable through their smartphone.

Or maybe through their partner's smartphone, as a variation on sex-fun-play.

According to Bleeping Computer, the security researchers did a wardriving test in San Francisco (they don't say if it was night or day) and found several people who were wearing theirs. Here was where they did the test (looks to be residential):

Given the inherent insecurity of these things, I can imagine the practical joke of the future. At work, triangulate in and find one of your more sexualized female workmates with one of these...wait until she goes into a meeting...dial it up to eleven...watch the hilarity ensue...

Go to a bar, similar...

A sex-toy party, where the female guests are expecting to be randomly stimulated by all and sundry at whim...

Hook some of these up to the internet for random people to "bid" on - highest bidder gets to stimulate the woman involved and watch her reaction via webcam...a variation on voyeurism...

Of course, never forget rule #36 - if it exists, there is porn of it. Perhaps some even home-grown, along the lines of revenge-porn...

You could probably make this into "the ultimate cuck" for the types who like a combination of public-sex and being cuckolded:

Him: "Hi honey, how did it go today at work?"

Her: "It was awesome, I got randomly stimulated fifteen times today!"

Him: "Ohhhhh that makes me so horny..."

Meh. What next? Open fucking in the streets? And there's still one helluva lot lower that we can go, you betcha.

A humorous look at the weird sexual perversions of humanity - brought to you by Crap-Colored Glasses™, only $1k the pair and cheap at 10x the price.

Darwin Award to California for Encouraging Child Prostitution

Time to rip the leftists and wimminz a new one. Sadly, they will not cry at this - instead they will simply cover their ears and chant "lalalala I can't hear you lalalala" at the top of their lungs. This is because they are utterly incapable of learning anything - due to their brains being a safe missing the key and welded up that has been set into a 100x100x100 meter block of concrete dropped into the remotest part of the Challenger Deep...

So on the Washington Examiner, I see that the state of California Californication has supposedly legalized child prostitution.

Wait, whut?

I read further into California Democrats Legalize Child Prostitution, and realize that the bloody title is (surprise!) shit-awful clickbait material. Reading a bit more:

Beginning on Jan 1, prostitution by minors will be legal in California. Yes, you read that right.

Hmm. Sounds like fuckin' horseshit to me. Dig a bit further - it turns out that the end result might have similar effects to having made some things legal. In that, the police will no longer be able to arrest (or prosecute) the underage for selling their bodies:

SB1322 bars law enforcement from arresting sex workers who are under the age of 18 for soliciting or engaging in prostitution, or loitering with the intent to do so. So teenage girls (and boys) in California will soon be free to have sex in exchange for money without fear of arrest or prosecution.

Wait, whut? Fuck, there's an echo here...

So time to go check out Snopes commentary on Child Prostitution Legalized In California:

The Democratic governor announced he signed SB1322 to ban police from charging people under the age of 18 with prostitution. 

Interesting.

This does not, however, mean that child prostitution is legal. It is still illegal for Californians to hire prostitutes (child or otherwise), and sex traffickers will still face consequences if they are caught prostituting children. The new law means that children involved in sex trafficking and prostitution will be treated as victims instead of criminals.

Ah. A very fine line. And that actually means?

Going back to the first link:

Pimping and pandering will still be against the law whether it involves running adult women or young girls. But legalizing child prostitution will only incentivize the increased exploitation of underage girls. Immunity from arrest means law enforcement can't interfere with minors engaging in prostitution - which translates into bigger and better cash flow for the pimps. Simply put, more time on the street and less time in jail means more money for pimps, and more victims for them to exploit.

A few notes:

1/ Note that only women and girls are mentioned, not young boys. Expected bias from a mainstream news source. They seem to think that nobody is going to be interested in sodomizing young boys - or perhaps boys getting fucked up the ass is of no concern whatsoever. /sarcasm

2/ It's not legalizing child prostitution in any form. It simply stops the police from easily getting them off the streets.

3/ Since the police can no longer get them off the streets quickly - then what? Straight back into it once the car is out of sight? "Hey mister, I'm eleven years old - want to fuck me?"

As the article states straight-up: "Minors involved in prostitution are clearly victims, and allowing our law enforcement officers to pick these minors up and get them away from their pimps and into custody is a dramatically better solution than making it legal for them to sell themselves for sex." Barring the bullshit about making it legal - the general idea for this situation seems sound, get them the hell out of the area/game asap.

No longer possible, the police just can't stop (or protect) them any more. Shades of the Rotheringham sex ring, only now it can be semi-open - not quietly ignored or swept under the carpet.

So, some simple-yet-complex questions:

a) If a pedophile gets picked up for paying an underage prostitute, can he plead guilty to paying for sex rather than having sex with a minor?

b) What about prior acts? Can they be re-pleaded as per the above, so long as the pedophile paid for it? (As being different from abduction/kidnapping/rape/whatever.)

c) What about pizzagate, with the above things in mind?

I'm rather stunned by the level of idiocy displayed by the morons who signed this into law (back in September). There's a reason that I'm going: "Wait, whut?"

'Cause while it is still not legal to pay for prostitutes of any age or sex - it looks like in the state of California it will be a helluva lot easier to find those underage prostitutes. Sure, you can probably get them off the streets, though it likely means that Social Workers Wankers rather than the police will have to become involved to do it.

Which makes me wonder at the real reasons behind this abomination of law. Every damn pedo in America looking at California and going "hmmmm" with anticipation. The Social Workers having even better job prospects, and (possibly) more powers handed to them. Perhaps even an increase in the number of police to deal specifically with the unintended fallout from this law.

Leftists and wimminz. I'd almost laugh, if it wasn't so fuckin' frightening. The feelz and intentions are more important than thinking things through thoroughly and looking at the worst of what might happen - never mind adjusting to what actually happens in reality.

For this, I have to hand it to California for the stupidity-uber-allez Darwin Award: likely turning your own leftist/SJW promised land into a smoking hellhole of sexual perversion. Way to go ya morons.