People v. Perez (1979) 23 Cal.3d 545, is the "touchstone" in determining how to apply general section 654 principles to sex offenses. (People v. Harrison, supra, 48 Cal.3d at p. 336.) In Perez, supra, 23 Cal.3d 545, the defendant was convicted of multiple offenses, including forcible rape, forcible sodomy, and two counts of forcible oral copulation that had been committed during a continuous attack of 45 minutes to an hour. (Id. at pp. 548-549.) The People contended that the trial court erred in staying execution of sentence on the oral copulation and sodomy convictions pursuant to section 654. (Ibid.) The defendant "asserted that the trial court properly found that his sole intent and objective was to obtain sexual gratification, and that since the evidence supports this finding, the trial court's ruling must be upheld." (Id. at p. 552.) Although the pandering and child procurement statutes ( 266i, subd. (b), 266j) do not criminalize particular sex acts, violations of those laws may be viewed as sexual offenses. (See 290 persons required to register under Sex Offender Registration Act includes persons convicted of sections 266i, subd. (b), and 266j; 290.005, subds. (c) and (d)(5) sex offenders required to register where convicted of pandering offense in out-of-state court and required to register in the state of conviction if the offense contained all of the elements of California pandering offense under section 266i; 1203.065, subd. (a) no probation or suspension of sentence for specified sex offenses, including sections 266i and 266j; see also People v. Bautista (2005) 129 Cal.App.4th 1431, 1437 rejecting argument that section 266j was not a sex crime within the meaning of section 288.5.)