So you went and figured out that I was right and am trying to back track. Got it. That said, you are wrong again. The law change does not determine that the offender in your scenario will not end up on the sex offender list. That person could very well end up on the list. It just means that the judge has the discretion not to put the offender on the list based on the type of sex act. Under the previous law, the judge had the discretion to keep the offender off the list if it was intercourse, but no discretion for oral sex. That makes zero sense.
You kooks like to focus on the extreme scenarios that rarely if ever happen....like getting an abortion a day before child birth. It is a stupid and a simpleton view. Statutory laws apply far more to scenarios like a high school senior having sex with a sophomore. Normal people would never advocate for a kid going on the sex offender list because he got a BJ but the kid that had intercourse gets to avoid it. It is common sense and a shame that you don't have any. BTW....you should be happy California has a 10 year statute. There are other states that don't even consider proximity of age which would allow statutory laws to apply to a 40 year old. You totally whiffed again.