Underage Actors and Sex Scenes

[Cat Whisperer]

Inspired by this thread (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=355044&page=1&pp=50), I was wondering about underage actors in sex scenes. Quite a few people in the thread referenced seem to be of the opinion that there is no harm done to any minor who is involved in a simulated sex scene because it's just make-believe. I'm not so sure I'm buying that.

Leaving the example of "The New World" aside, because it's been pretty well established that there is nothing going on with an underage girl that her grandma couldn't do to her, there have been other movies mentioned where underage actors, usually girls, were involved in some questionable scenes. It seems to me like movies must be pretty vigilant about what goes on with underage actors (they must only work so many hours in a day, they must still get schoolwork done, etc.) that there doesn't seem to be much opportunity for studios to take advantage of an underage actor, so can we assume that any time we see a young person in a movie seeming to do something age-inappropriate, that it is not what the young person actually experienced?

And how about underage people in the acting business, period? It doesn't seem to have done any favours to many child actors. Maybe we should be less concerned about what goes on on-screen and more concerned about how being in this business as a minor affects a child.

[Frank]

I can't decide whether this should go to Cafe Society or Great Debates.

Given the way the Pit thread shaped up...

Moved from IMHO to Great Debates.

[Cat Whisperer]

Sorry, Frank - now that you point it out, it makes perfect sense to have started it in Cafe Society (where's that slaphead smiley?).

[Martin Hyde]

Inspired by this thread (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=355044&page=1&pp=50), I was wondering about underage actors in sex scenes. Quite a few people in the thread referenced seem to be of the opinion that there is no harm done to any minor who is involved in a simulated sex scene because it's just make-believe. I'm not so sure I'm buying that.

Leaving the example of "The New World" aside, because it's been pretty well established that there is nothing going on with an underage girl that her grandma couldn't do to her, there have been other movies mentioned where underage actors, usually girls, were involved in some questionable scenes. It seems to me like movies must be pretty vigilant about what goes on with underage actors (they must only work so many hours in a day, they must still get schoolwork done, etc.) that there doesn't seem to be much opportunity for studios to take advantage of an underage actor, so can we assume that any time we see a young person in a movie seeming to do something age-inappropriate, that it is not what the young person actually experienced?

And how about underage people in the acting business, period? It doesn't seem to have done any favours to many child actors. Maybe we should be less concerned about what goes on on-screen and more concerned about how being in this business as a minor affects a child.

Well, in general I don't think people should be in simulated sexual scenes with minors. They especially shouldn't be feeling minors up and etc, as Cartooniverse said you can't fake that, and he was right on that point. You can't fake certain things (sadly that had nothing to do with the film he was talking about.)

I have no problem with "implied" sexuality and that's probably the easiest way to go about it if you're trying to show a love affair in a historical movie that, historically, happened between a child and a far older person.

[DMC]

They especially shouldn't be feeling minors up and etc, as Cartooniverse said you can't fake that, and he was right on that point. You can't fake certain things (sadly that had nothing to do with the film he was talking about.)You can fake this easily enough with a body double. I can show you nude pictures of Jessica Alba from a movie, but can guarantee you she's never been nude in one, unfortunate as that might be. Yes, she's not a minor, but faking it is faking it, and there are plenty of body doubles available that are well over 18 yet have bodies that could easily pass for teenagers, or even pre-teens.

I don't think we should legalize actual sex scenes with actual minors involved in the sexual activities, even for artistic reasons, but faking it, implying it, or having them participate in the scenes in a non-sexual manner are fine by me. I'm all for artistic freedom, but you also have to take into consideration the child's best interest. We don't let them make the call as to when they are sexually mature enough to engage in sex with whomever they please, so we shouldn't be allowing them to make the call as to whether they can handle it for artistic purposes.

I'm really not too concerned with Hollywood abusing this, as they're now very protective of young kids, even if it they happen to be that way for selfish reasons, which is quite possible.

I also don't think Hollywood can be specifically blamed for the problems many young child stars have. I think it's fame and wealth in general, not Hollywood, that some people aren't prepared for at a young age. Young sports stars, and children of the wealthy or famous also seem to exhibit similar behavior more frequently than the average kid. This is a tough area, because you can say that the parents need to step in and take control to keep these things under control, but many Hollywood parents, as well as famous parents in general, haven't shown themselves to have the kid's best interest in mind, either.

[Tapioca Dextrin]

You can't fake certain things (sadly that had nothing to do with the film he was talking about.)

Ever hear of movie magic? Classic case being The Exorcist. When the 12yo Lida Blair has that scene with the crucifix, she's not there at all. It's her double. It's not her doing screaming ou "F**k me Satan" it was looped on later by someone else.

Not underage, but how about Brad Pitt in Fight Club? When he's doing the nasty with Helena Bonham Carter, them's stunt buttocks. :eek:

[Asimovian]

I'm a little surprised that any movie that includes the suggestion or simulation of sex (or related activities) with a minor doesn't include a disclaimer during the credits, akin to the "No animals were harmed in the making of this film" notices one often sees. Or does such a disclaimer exist?

[Cat Whisperer]

<snip>
I don't think we should legalize actual sex scenes with actual minors involved in the sexual activities, even for artistic reasons, but faking it, implying it, or having them participate in the scenes in a non-sexual manner are fine by me. <snip>
Someone mentioned in the other thread that you also are not allowed to create a representation of a child in a sexual situation (through CGI or cartooning, etc.), and the logical extension of that to me is that you are also not allowed to fake sex scenes with minors by swapping in body doubles, etc. I think the concern with this is that if it looks like a minor is involved in a sexual situation, it stimulates the prurient interest of a pedophile, and that's not a good thing.

[Miller]

Someone mentioned in the other thread that you also are not allowed to create a representation of a child in a sexual situation (through CGI or cartooning, etc.), and the logical extension of that to me is that you are also not allowed to fake sex scenes with minors by swapping in body doubles, etc.

I'd be interested to learn how many of these laws have stood up to a constitutional challenge. (I seem to recall reading that many of these laws have already been struck down, but I don't have a cite handy.) It's been well established that you can write about sex with children, and don't think it's legal to have different standards of free speech dependent on the medium being used. That is, if it's legal to write about it, it's legal to draw a picture of it.

I think the concern with this is that if it looks like a minor is involved in a sexual situation, it stimulates the prurient interest of a pedophile, and that's not a good thing.

That's the pretext, certainly, but I don't think it's compelling. Again, reading Lolita might be equally "stimulating" to a pedophile, and it remains legal. The standard ought to be (and, so far as I know, actually is) wether a child is actually harmed in the production of the material. A photo of someone having sex with a child is harmful to that child. A photo of someone having sex with an adult, with a child's head photoshopped over the adult's head, does not harm that child, and should not be illegal.

[DMC]

Someone mentioned in the other thread that you also are not allowed to create a representation of a child in a sexual situation (through CGI or cartooning, etc.), and the logical extension of that to me is that you are also not allowed to fake sex scenes with minors by swapping in body doubles, etc.To avoid having me read the entire thread, could you elaborate on this, please? Did they mention it, or did they actually cite the statute, and if the latter, would you mind linking to it? It seems to me that half of the anime distributors in this country would be in jail if this were the case.

To be honest, I'm not worried about whether something appeals to pedophiles or not, as we'd not have a lot of movies if we eliminated all of the ones that might appeal to the baser instincts of one subgroup or another.

[Mtgman]

What are the real dangers of underage(post-pubescent) sexual contact with over-age adults? The major factors, from my point of view, are Lack of emotional maturity in the under-age partner. Lack of experience in decision-making for issues as important and with as far-reaching consequences/effects as intimate relations for the under-age partner. Pregnancy, STDs, and other physical side effects which the younger partner may not be financially capable, physically developed, or emotionally capable of handling. Possible emotional, physical, or financial coercion of the younger party by the elder.Which of these is present in a love scene in a movie? Aside from X-rated films, I can't think of any.

Appearances aside, what aspects of the dangers of overage-underage sexual congress are present in film making? Are there aspects I haven't outlined which make the difference, if so what are they?

Enjoy,
Steven

[Polycarp]

Okay, we need to be identifying exactly what we're talking about here. Actual, visible sexual contact, meaning direct contact between someone's genitals and an organ of someone else's body, is flat-out child pornography, and illegal. Regardless of the medium, if a real child is being used. (Anime artists can do their thing; the kids in their pictures live only in their imagination.)

As for simulations of any sort, whether violence, romance, etc., typically a kid over eight is quite aware of the difference between fantasy and reality, between play-acting and the real thing. And is well aware that if you're playing a role in a play or movie or TV show, what you're doing is to pretend you're living out the character.

Further, taking the kids I've known well as a fair-sized sample, most kids are quite well aware that violence, physical romance, and so on exist. They are not going to be damaged psychically by playing the part of a child that gets attacked (whether physical or sexual abuse), particularly if the actor playing the other role goes over with the kid what's being done first, as is, so I understand, common practice. Although it's not strictly on point, one example from a comedy may help explain this: Jonathan Harris was a role model and mentor to Bill Mumy when they played Dr. Zachary Smith and Will Robinson in "Lost in Space," and the two of them would go over the script together ahead of time, and decide together how to make their characters interact better and more humorously. That gave rise to a lifelong friendship between them that ended with Harris's death in 2002, nearly 40 years later.

A child actor who's just shared a Coke and a long friendly discussion with an adult actor about how to play out an abuse scene is not going to be traumatized by acting out the scene; he or she knows quite well that it's acting, not real life.

And that, at rock bottom, is the problem with the whole issue. I can recall reading one interview with a child actor who had done an anti-abuse commercial, in which she said that she was aware that kids did get abused, and was glad to have acted out that short abuse scene in the commercial in order to make people be more aware that it happens. The interviewer asked her if it upset her, and he said she gave him a scornful look, and a response that amounted to "I was acting, playing a role. And if it helps kids that have to deal with that in real life, I'd do it a hundred times!"

[Miller]

What are the real dangers of underage(post-pubescent) sexual contact with over-age adults? The major factors, from my point of view, are Lack of emotional maturity in the under-age partner. Lack of experience in decision-making for issues as important and with as far-reaching consequences/effects as intimate relations for the under-age partner. Pregnancy, STDs, and other physical side effects which the younger partner may not be financially capable, physically developed, or emotionally capable of handling. Possible emotional, physical, or financial coercion of the younger party by the elder.Which of these is present in a love scene in a movie? Aside from X-rated films, I can't think of any.

Appearances aside, what aspects of the dangers of overage-underage sexual congress are present in film making? Are there aspects I haven't outlined which make the difference, if so what are they?

Enjoy,
Steven

I've been trying and failing to make exactly this point for, like, three days now. Thanks for hitting the nail on the head.

[JRDelirious]

DMC The current law is Title V (sections 501-521) the PROTECT Act of 2003, specifically Title 5 thereof.

Full text at: http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/cpquery/T?&report=hr066&dbname=108&

Regarding CGI, it forbids such representation as :

that is, or is indistinguishable from, that of a minor engaging in sexually explicit conduct. Notice: not in ANY sexual context, in an explicit one (My emphasis added)

Regarding drawings, paintings, etc, it forbids those that:
(1)(A) depicts a minor engaging in sexually explicit conduct; and
(B) is obscene; or
(2)(A) depicts an image that is, or appears to be, of a minor engaging in graphic bestiality, sadistic or masochistic abuse, or sexual intercourse, including genital-genital, oral-genital, anal-genital, or oral-anal, whether between persons of the same or opposite sex; and
(B) lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value; Again, not just ANY sexual context, but an obscene or pornographic one.

In pieces using actors, it specifically exempts scenes between two people over 18 playing minors.

Laws already in effect did forbid using any part of an image of a real minor, whether cut-and-pasted or morphed, in a sexually explicit image. This was sustained because even if no material sex crime was committed against the minor, it's still in violation of a real person's rights to use their image in such a manner. You can't have any image or part of image or morph of image of a minor in a sexually explicit scene, period.

NOT sexually-explicit situations, OTOH, are a different case, and as long as measures are taken to protect the integrity and safety of the minor they do not come under the legislation. Dept. of Family and Child welfare agents may ask to take a look to ensure that nothing funny's going on, but as long as they're satisfied it's so, then... [Master Thespian]"that's ACTING!"[/MT] The marketplace generally takes care of any mainstream film that portrays too ooky a situation.


Putting aside that many of the "findings" section 501 are major exercises in begging the question, the approval of PROTECT Title V is the latest in a sequence of previous legal maneouvres:

The first laws that forbade even the appearance of a minor in even the appearance of a sexual situation, in the 1990s, were thrown out in the courts in that decade because that was too damn broad, and it would allow every Podunk prosecutor in the land to haul Blockbuster clerks into jail and the Sex Offender Registry for stocking The Tin Drum, Porky's, Lolita or The Blue Lagoon (OK, some of these are quite bad, but hardly criminal).

The ones that came after that were thrown out in 2002, on account that they were still not properly focused; that if the purpose of the law is to protect children, it can't be the same crime if NO children are used; and that it is up to the prosecution to prove a crime happened or was attempted, not that "it could, possibly, in the worst case scenario, maybe someone will copycat it for real".

In seeking the PROTECT Act, DoJ raised the alarm that eventually CGI will become so good that you won't be able to tell, and kiddie porn producers would use that as a defense. AND they argued as a "given fact" that pedophiles will use simulated CP or lolicon cartoons to "entice" their victims. (Which leads me to speculate as to how likely is it that your average Evil Uncle Ernie out there will spend a whole lot of cash and time recreating the Pixar studio in his garage and training himself to use it, when he can just go on using the neighborhood kids and his camcorder. also, what will an average juror consider "indistinguishable from real"? As in, the level of animation of Final Fantasy? Of Tripping the Rift? Of GTA Vice City?)


Title V of PROTECT has not been tested in the courts yet. Heck, I don't know if it's even been used except maybe in cases of folks who were already repeat offenders for CP or regular obscenity; though the rumor mill says they're concentrating on the CGI aspect.
The potentialy weakest link is the section that states:
"(c) NONREQUIRED ELEMENT OF OFFENSE- It is not a required element of any offense under this section that the minor depicted actually exist.",
which has repeatedly been an objection at SC level to prior versions. The idea seems to be to create a category of offense that is independent of the presence of real children, so that anyone on the wrong end of the stick would have to argue the material is NOT obscene, or be left to challenge that he should not be punished under the same guidelines as a real CP purveyor. IANAL, but the effect of that clause sounds like "you're guilty, until proven guilty of something else".


Disclosure: as an amateur Web-cartoonist who has produced some "Adult Material" in my time (under other identities), I followed a lot of these discussions in Y-Groups and other Boards. Right now the web has boards that have completely banished any "underage" content; boards that have kept drawings and paintings but got rid of CGI; and boards that happily keep on torrenting Japan's latest volume of Lolicon or Shota hardcore.

[JRDelirious]

Oh, and DMC, virtually all the Hentai Anime licensed for US distribution have a disclaimer to the effect that all characters in sexual situations are over 18; and are edited to remove references to young ages in dialog and subtitles and sex scenes with obviously-prepubescent characters. It helps that a lot of the conventions of Anime/Manga art cause a character that is supposed to be 14 to not look that much different, developmentally, than one of 18.

[DMC]

Oh, and DMC, virtually all the Hentai Anime licensed for US distribution have a disclaimer to the effect that all characters in sexual situations are over 18; and are edited to remove references to young ages in dialog and subtitles and sex scenes with obviously-prepubescent characters. It helps that a lot of the conventions of Anime/Manga art cause a character that is supposed to be 14 to not look that much different, developmentally, than one of 18.Thanks for the informative posts. I got a kick out of this one, by the way, as it sounds an awful lot like "All of the 14 year olds in our movie are being played by drawings of 18 year olds."

Got to love that: :D

[Cat Whisperer]

I tend to think of restricting minors in sexually explicit situations in CGI and cartooning to be somewhat ludicrous. All of our drawings are over 18? They were drawn 18 years ago? There is definitely a ridiculous element here.

I can see where the argument against sexual minor cartoons comes from, that a form indistinguishable from a child should not be used for a sex scene, but the bottom line becomes why not? Who is harmed when someone draws a cartoon of child in a sexual situation? I can draw a cartoon of a kitten with its head chopped off; I'm not saying that's a good thing, but what makes it a bad thing?

[Martin Hyde]

You can fake this easily enough with a body double. I can show you nude pictures of Jessica Alba from a movie, but can guarantee you she's never been nude in one, unfortunate as that might be. Yes, she's not a minor, but faking it is faking it, and there are plenty of body doubles available that are well over 18 yet have bodies that could easily pass for teenagers, or even pre-teens.

I guess I didn't clarify what I was saying. I'm saying if you have an >18 year old actor feeling up an <18 year old actor, there's no faking the fact that it's an adult feeling up a minor. It's not real sex nor is it really what I would call porn, but I was just spekaing in the same veing as Cartooniverse was, if there's actual contact there's no "faking it" involved. Just like you know, when you see Pierce Brosnan and Halle Berry going at it in a Bond movie, the two actors don't actually have intercourse with each other, but they do actually come into intimate contact. The sex doesn't happen, but the touching *is* real. Obviously if you have a body double that's a different issue.

[DMC]

II can see where the argument against sexual minor cartoons comes from, that a form indistinguishable from a child should not be used for a sex scene, but the bottom line becomes why not? I can almost see the writing on the wall on this one. Enforcement will be the last line of defense. When it becomes technically possible for a CGI minor to be completely indistinquishable from an actual minor, law enforcement will insist that it's not possible to verify every single instance that exists, if the one is found legal and the other illegal. I have no clue if they'll have a legal leg to stand on, but I can see that argument being made in the future.

[DMC]

Obviously if you have a body double that's a different issue.But with all of the potential issues surrounding this, why wouldn't they always use a body double in this situation? No parental consent, no potential criminal liabilities, etc. I guess if some director made some argument about the "integrity" of the scene, it might come up, but wouldn't we just roll our eyes at that director?

[Rysto]

There was a case in Canada that has relevence. A movie called "Fat Girl", which depicted a 15-year character(played by a woman more than 18 years old) in sexual scenes, including nudity. The film was originally barred from being shown in Ontario by the Ontario Film Review board, but when legal action was threatened the board backed down, fearing that it's powers would be limited if it were to lose a court case.

Link (http://www.indiewire.com/biz/biz_011114_briefs.html).
The OFR board backs down (http://www.cp.org/premium/online/commercial/Entertainment/030129/e012928A.html)

[Voyager]

I guess I didn't clarify what I was saying. I'm saying if you have an >18 year old actor feeling up an <18 year old actor, there's no faking the fact that it's an adult feeling up a minor. It's not real sex nor is it really what I would call porn, but I was just spekaing in the same veing as Cartooniverse was, if there's actual contact there's no "faking it" involved. Just like you know, when you see Pierce Brosnan and Halle Berry going at it in a Bond movie, the two actors don't actually have intercourse with each other, but they do actually come into intimate contact. The sex doesn't happen, but the touching *is* real. Obviously if you have a body double that's a different issue.

I would doubt very highly that any legitimate (ie SAG or indie) movie would ever do this. Ever since the Twilight Zone movie disaster, there is incredible concern about exposing child actors to anything harmful. Now, I've never been to a shoot where sex is any sort of an issue, but I can tell you that child actors were kept well away from flying creamed corn. (This is called smoke work, btw.)

There are a lot of reasons having nothing to do with sex for using > 18 actors in place of < 18 ones, and actors who look under 18 are in great demand. So, if there were a call in a script for something resembling sex with a < 18 character, you can be sure the actors will be adults.

I can't speak for porn films (though I doubt very much mainstream porn would go near this) or sickos. But I think "real" films are clean as driven snow.

[Voyager]

But with all of the potential issues surrounding this, why wouldn't they always use a body double in this situation? No parental consent, no potential criminal liabilities, etc. I guess if some director made some argument about the "integrity" of the scene, it might come up, but wouldn't we just roll our eyes at that director?
No agent would let his or her kid anywhere near such a role. I'd love to hear a supposed example of this kind of thing happening.

Any director who did try to do this would never get any casting director to go near him.

[even sven]

Oh dear god does anyone really think more rules, regulations and ratings are going to make a single thing in the world better? Artists already live in fear that a few notes of "Happy Birthday to you" in a film will land them in jail. They already have to weight their artistic statements vs. the MPAA. Do we really want to get serious working censorship on things? Do we really want to straightjacket art in the name of maybe five kids a year who nobody has any evidence gets traumatized. At 16, I was giving blowjobs in the park to my boyfriend. I seriously doubt some mock sex I was getting paid for would have hurt me. And if it did, I could bring some sort of charges at the movie maker.

There are plenty of real kids actually being hurt here to focus our energy on. Let's go find them instead of chasing phantoms and putting artists in a bind.

[Cervaise]

"Fat Girl"A very good, if searingly unpleasant, movie, which provides an excellent benchmark for the edge of legality. Another example would be the German film The Tin Drum, which offers the uncommon variation of the sexually-involved minor being male. There was, indeed, some controversy about the movie a few years ago. In Kansas, no less, if memory serves.

[Tapioca Dextrin]

In Kansas, no less, if memory serves.

Oklahoma (http://www.bubbaworld.com/tin-drum.html).

[Cervaise]

Thanks. Clearly my memory does not serve.

[Kalhoun]

I guess I didn't clarify what I was saying. I'm saying if you have an >18 year old actor feeling up an <18 year old actor, there's no faking the fact that it's an adult feeling up a minor. It's not real sex nor is it really what I would call porn, but I was just spekaing in the same veing as Cartooniverse was, if there's actual contact there's no "faking it" involved. Just like you know, when you see Pierce Brosnan and Halle Berry going at it in a Bond movie, the two actors don't actually have intercourse with each other, but they do actually come into intimate contact. The sex doesn't happen, but the touching *is* real. Obviously if you have a body double that's a different issue.
Is touching a boob "sex"? If no one is pressing charges, I don't think it's sex.

[Miller]

Oklahoma (http://www.bubbaworld.com/tin-drum.html).

You're saying Kansas and Oklahoma are two different places?

I'm going to need a cite for that.

[saoirse]

...In seeking the PROTECT Act, DoJ raised the alarm that eventually CGI will become so good that you won't be able to tell, and kiddie porn producers would use that as a defense. AND they argued as a "given fact" that pedophiles will use simulated CP or lolicon cartoons to "entice" their victims. (Which leads me to speculate as to how likely is it that your average Evil Uncle Ernie out there will spend a whole lot of cash and time recreating the Pixar studio in his garage and training himself to use it, when he can just go on using the neighborhood kids and his camcorder. also, what will an average juror consider "indistinguishable from real"? As in, the level of animation of Final Fantasy? Of Tripping the Rift? Of GTA Vice City?)

Just to add a little shading to this, though:

I believe their concern was more with the way Photoshop-type programs could be used to "create" kiddie-porn out of legal pictures. Again, if it was done well, it could be indistinguishable from a real-live picture of the perv's neice. Also, the burden of proof would be on the prosecutor to show that it wasn't. Our perv would not even have to keep his originals.

I still agree with you about the scope of the law, though. I believe it hasn't been tested because the government doesn't think it can win right now.

[JRDelirious]

I believe their concern was more with the way Photoshop-type programs could be used to "create" kiddie-porn out of legal pictures. Again, if it was done well, it could be indistinguishable from a real-live picture of the perv's neice. Also, the burden of proof would be on the prosecutor to show that it wasn't. Our perv would not even have to keep his originals. Yes, and it was (and is) already illegal to do that with a recognizable photographic likeness of a real minor. The change in that case is, as you said, making it unnecessary to prove the source of the sample pic.

[JRDelirious]

Thanks for the informative posts. I got a kick out of this one, by the way, as it sounds an awful lot like "All of the 14 year olds in our movie are being played by drawings of 18 year olds."

Got to love that: :D

The best part about it is that I betcha quite a few clueless American hentai are Beavis-and-Buttheading about "Yeah, sure, she's 18, right, huhuhuhuhuh" as they watch some DVDs, imagining that every other character in the unedited originals is portrayed as under 14, while that may not necessarily be so for that particular show...

[Feydeau]

Is touching a boob "sex"? If no one is pressing charges, I don't think it's sex.
Doesn't follow. Sex is sex, whether anyone involved (or not involved) presses charges or not.

"Touching a boob" isn't sex per se but if the boob is under 18, it's quite thoroughly illegal if done in an enticing way.

[Polycarp]

Doesn't follow. Sex is sex, whether anyone involved (or not involved) presses charges or not.

"Touching a boob" isn't sex per se but if the boob is under 18, it's quite thoroughly illegal if done in an enticing way.

Which means that every gynecologist in America who's treated a patient under 18, as well as all parents, babysitters, etc. who have ever cleansed a child's private parts, are guilty of sexual abuse.

The point being made in all this stuff is that what we are talking about is not seduction but drama, and that a child of any age to be doing acting is quite well aware of the difference between "real life" and playing a dramatic role.

There's a distinction between "good touch" and "bad touch" that small children can be equipped to understand. I'm surprised it seems to have escaped a lot of Dopers what it is.

[Kalhoun]

Doesn't follow. Sex is sex, whether anyone involved (or not involved) presses charges or not.

"Touching a boob" isn't sex per se but if the boob is under 18, it's quite thoroughly illegal if done in an enticing way.
I'd like to see a cite on that.

[Kalhoun]

My point being that there's no nudity, no penetration, etc.

[Cervaise]

You're saying Kansas and Oklahoma are two different places?Well, look at a map. Oklahoma, obviously, is just Kansas with a soggy bottom and a boner.

[Mtgman]

"Touching a boob" isn't sex per se but if the boob is under 18, it's quite thoroughly illegal if done in an enticing way.Who determines if something is "enticing"? The participants, or the observers? The participants are playing roles, not actually trying to entice each other. Why should the observer, the person they are actively trying to make believe their performance, be the one to say what is and is not going on? Why do appearances hold sway in an industry which is designed, from the ground up, to create false appearances?

The rationale behind child pornography and indecency with a child laws is to protect children from actual harm. It doesn't matter what it looks like or doesn't look like. The standard is not, and should not be, appearance-based. Appearances not only can be, in this case they definitely ARE, deceiving.

Enjoy,
Steven

[Feydeau]

I'd like to see a cite on that.

<backpedal mode on>

Well. It seems as though I was under the impression that "intent" to arouse a minor was spelled out much more specifically in the statute than it is.

Consider my statement retracted.

<backpedal mode off>

Perhaps I should lurk a whole lot more in GD before participating. Or do some research first.

My apologies. Carry on.

[JRDelirious]

What IS usually outlawed NOT the mere act of touching a minor's breast or buttock, ever, period -- the statutes specify circumstances and yes, intent[/i]. Mostly it involves "lewd" and/or "lascivious" conduct or intent, which is defined by statute and case law in the various jurisdictions.

For instance, Florida:

Statute, from http://www.flsenate.gov/Statutes/index.cfm?App_mode=Display_Statute&Search_String=&URL=Ch0800/Sec04.HTM -- excerpted:
(5) LEWD OR LASCIVIOUS MOLESTATION.--
(a) A person who intentionally touches[B] in a lewd or lascivious manner the breasts, genitals, genital area, or buttocks, or the clothing covering them, of a person less than 16 years of age, or forces or entices a person under 16 years of age to so touch the perpetrator, commits lewd or lascivious molestation.

(b) An offender 18 years of age or older who commits lewd or lascivious molestation against a victim less than 12 years of age commits a life felony, punishable as provided in s. 775.082(3)(a)4.

(c)1. An offender less than 18 years of age who commits lewd or lascivious molestation against a victim less than 12 years of age; or
2. An offender 18 years of age or older who commits lewd or lascivious molestation against a victim 12 years of age or older but less than 16 years of age

commits a felony of the second degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084.
(d) An offender less than 18 years of age who commits lewd or lascivious molestation against a victim 12 years of age or older but less than 16 years of age commits a felony of the third degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084.

(6) LEWD OR LASCIVIOUS CONDUCT.--
(a) A person who:
1. Intentionally touches a person under 16 years of age in a lewd or lascivious manner; or
2. Solicits a person under 16 years of age to commit a lewd or lascivious act

commits lewd or lascivious conduct.

(b) An offender 18 years of age or older who commits lewd or lascivious conduct commits a felony of the second degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084.

(c) An offender less than 18 years of age who commits lewd or lascivious conduct commits a felony of the third degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084.


Case law, from http://www.locatethelaw.org/ManualWebFiles/LewdorLasciviousConduct.htm#_Toc77846734 -- excerpted:
Lewd and Lascivious:
As used in regard to this offense the words "lewd" and" lascivious" mean the same thing and mean a wicked, lustful, unchaste, licentious, or sensual intent on the part of the person doing an act.

M.L.C. v. State, 29 Fla. L. Weekly D1577 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004):
Evidence that juvenile briefly touched two of his middle school classmates on their clothed buttocks without any accompanying suggestive remarks or body language was insufficient to show lewd or lascivious intent. Facts constituted battery.

Williamson v. State, 28 Fla. L. Weekly D786 (Fla. 2d DCA 2002):
Defendant was erroneously convicted of lewd and lascivious act on person under sixteen years of age on basis of brief events occurring when child dumped coins into swim trunks defendant was wearing. Defendant did not initiate event, defendant directed child to stop when he became uncomfortable with situation, and there was not evidence from which court could infer wicked, lustful, unchaste, licentious, or sensual design on part of defendant.

Farrell v. State, 791 So.2d 598 (Fla. 3d DCA 2001):
Defendant was properly convicted lewd or lascivious assault upon a child where only evidence presented at trial involved victim touching defendant. Intent can be imputed from circumstances, and requisite intent can be imputed from defendant's acquiescence to victim's touch.

[...]
Burks v. State, 766 So.2d 468 (Fla. 5th DCA 2000):
Error to deny motion for judgment of acquittal where there was no evidence which would support conclusion that defendant’s act of coming from behind his trailer while naked and putting his hands on his hips was act of “wicked, lustful, unchaste, licentious or sexual design.” Trailer was located in remote location on five acres of land, and there was no evidence that defendant knew of presence of others.
Discussion: This case is worth reading for entertainment value. The perplexed appellate judges repeatedly display their amazement at the conduct of the victims in this case. Not only did they find that the pitiful defendant had done nothing wrong, they expressed amazement that the State did not file aggravated battery charges against the victim’s mother’s fiancee for beating up the defendant after learning of the alleged lewd act. “Astonishing” and “incredible” are words frequently used to refer to the conduct of the victim and her family members. The court also noted that this opinion is confined to the “unique facts and circumstances of this particular case.” There is also good review of how other appellate decisions have defined “lewd and lascivious.”

Washington v. State, 766 So.2d 325 (Fla. 4th DCA 2000):
Trial court did not err in denying defendant’s motion for judgment of acquittal and permitting jury to decide, based upon totality of circumstances, whether defendant’s actions in brushing, touching or caressing victim outside of her clothing violated statute. [...] basic conclusion is that it is not possible for statutes to describe every act to be considered lewd and therefore it is generally a jury question based on the totality of the circumstances.

[...]
Egal v. State, 469 So.2d 196 (Fla. 2d DCA 1985):
The term "lewd and lascivious" imputes more than negligent disregard of decent proprieties and consideration due to others.
Conduct which in some circumstances might be purely innocent, such as nudity, can be found to be lewd and lascivious if accompanied by requisite improper intent.
[...]

[... several more pages of case Law, some really shocking, some really stupid...]

[Mister Rik]

I can almost see the writing on the wall on this one. Enforcement will be the last line of defense. When it becomes technically possible for a CGI minor to be completely indistinquishable from an actual minor, law enforcement will insist that it's not possible to verify every single instance that exists, if the one is found legal and the other illegal. I have no clue if they'll have a legal leg to stand on, but I can see that argument being made in the future.
Perhaps the CGI-porn industry should follow the lead of the toy gun manufacturers and give their CGI renditions of minors bright orange ... um ... noses to indicate that they are not actual "children".

[Polycarp]

Nice cites, JRDelirious, and they reflect the proposition being presented here.

Perhaps a parallel might be drawn. There is a foreign movie called Ginostra involving FBI agents pursuing the Mob to the island of Ginostra, off Sicily. It includes a scene in which a boy, Ettore Greco, played by Mattia de Martino, aims a gun at mobsters pursuing him and his mother.

Now, in real life, pointing a gun at someone constitutes assault with a deadly weapon. Instructing a child to do so constitutes a crime variously described but New York's "Endangering the Welfare of a Child" statute (Sec. 260.10 P.L.) probably will give the idea.

Okay, is it a crime for a director to instruct a child portraying a role to play a scene in which he points a gun at someone? If Ginostra had been filmed in New York, would director Manuel Pradal have been guilty of endangering the welfare of young Mattia by having him play that scene? If Cartooniverse were the cameraman for that scene, would he have been legally required to step in and charge the director with a criminal offense, and call the police to stop the shooting?

I think the answer is laughable. Under any reasonable interpretation of the law, there was no criminal intent nor was there any damage to young Mattia's moral state from playing that role.

Likewise, a child portraying a victim of sexual abuse is quite well aware that the adult actor, whom he probably considers a friend and co-worker, is going to be doing something that if done in real life with serious intent, would be a violation of his personal space and dignity, but they're playing roles. My guess is that any director or actor preparing to film a sexually suggestive scene with a child will take the time to prepare the child for what is about to happen, walking through the script line by line, to make sure that there is no harm or fear in the child from playing the scene.

Is this making any sense to anyone but me?

[Miller]

Is this making any sense to anyone but me?

A better question is, is this not making sense to anyone but Cartooniverse?

[Mr2001]

Do we really want to straightjacket art in the name of maybe five kids a year who nobody has any evidence gets traumatized. At 16, I was giving blowjobs in the park to my boyfriend. I seriously doubt some mock sex I was getting paid for would have hurt me. And if it did, I could bring some sort of charges at the movie maker.

There are plenty of real kids actually being hurt here to focus our energy on. Let's go find them instead of chasing phantoms and putting artists in a bind.
Hear, hear. You've got a consenting(*) minor who's been coached on exactly what to expect, while her parents and various other people are observing and ready to stop it the moment anything goes wrong. Even if it's all an elaborate cover story for Bigname Actor and a minor to have creepy public sex with each other, it's nowhere near abuse.

Now if only the law could accomodate the fact that the words "yes" and "no" have meaning even when they're spoken by young people, I wouldn't have needed that asterisk.

[Mister Rik]

Now if only the law could accomodate the fact that the words "yes" and "no" have meaning even when they're spoken by young people, I wouldn't have needed that asterisk.
Personally, I disagree with the idea that a 14-year-old is a "child".

[Voyager]

Likewise, a child portraying a victim of sexual abuse is quite well aware that the adult actor, whom he probably considers a friend and co-worker, is going to be doing something that if done in real life with serious intent, would be a violation of his personal space and dignity, but they're playing roles. My guess is that any director or actor preparing to film a sexually suggestive scene with a child will take the time to prepare the child for what is about to happen, walking through the script line by line, to make sure that there is no harm or fear in the child from playing the scene.

Is this making any sense to anyone but me?
Depends on what the scene is. If it is faked to look like something is happening when nothing is (easily done with the proper camera angles) it might be okay. If it is a real action, probably not. Playing a role does not make it any less real, especially when a kid has to do it several times in front of lots of people. I've heard directors on commentary tracks talk about how embarassing it was for two kids who were friends and who had acted together in a show for years to kiss - and not a hot kiss either. When my daughter was a vegetarian, she had to eat lobster on camera. She agreed to do it, and the AD was real good about cutting fast so she could spit it out.

Maybe some kids could handle it fine, but I'd hate to think what the impact on others would be.

[Kalhoun]

So, is hot kissing in the "bad zone"? If you're trying to entice a young girl through kissing, even though there is no groping, fondling, or grinding, can that be considered illegal?

[Kalhoun]

To clarify, I'm referring to "real life" kissing. I get the whole acting thing.

[Mr2001]

I've heard directors on commentary tracks talk about how embarassing it was for two kids who were friends and who had acted together in a show for years to kiss - and not a hot kiss either. [...]

Maybe some kids could handle it fine, but I'd hate to think what the impact on others would be.
Well, I hate to ask you to think about it, but what do you think the impact might be?

Would they be struck down by fatal embarrassment like those kids on the commentary track, or might today's medical science be able to treat a severe case of embarrassment before it becomes malignant? ;)

When my daughter was a vegetarian, she had to eat lobster on camera. She agreed to do it, and the AD was real good about cutting fast so she could spit it out.
A vegetarian eating fish is going against her principles for a role.. hardly comparable to another minor doing something she (and her parents) have no objection to, but which is merely controversial.

[DMC]

I've heard directors on commentary tracks talk about how embarassing it was for two kids who were friends and who had acted together in a show for years to kiss - and not a hot kiss either.I was one of those kids. I was 12, and I was supposed to kiss a girl on the lips, closed mouth (no, it's not listed on IMDB :) ). I was extremely embarassed about doing so. I'm not aware of any subconcious trauma. In fact, I'm pretty sure I was over it in about 5 minutes. I don't believe we need to protect children from embarassment. If so, my parents were quite cruel to me because of all of the photos they'd trot out when I'd get a new girlfriend.

[Voyager]

Would they be struck down by fatal embarrassment like those kids on the commentary track, or might today's medical science be able to treat a severe case of embarrassment before it becomes malignant? ;)


A vegetarian eating fish is going against her principles for a role.. hardly comparable to another minor doing something she (and her parents) have no objection to, but which is merely controversial.
My point about this is that being on a set does not separate an action from a person. The things I mentioned were minor, and no problem at all. If a teeny thing like kissing causes embarrassment, how about a big thing like a sex scene.

I'd question that a kid has no objection to something like this. Perhaps if the kid had done it in real life, she wouldn't, but I'm assuming a standard issue inexperienced kid.

I'm not sure about the parents. The new SAG rules try to help the parents resist directors. The parents of the kids who dies in the Vic Morrow incident were there, after all. I'd rather be safe and say no.

[Mr2001]

My point about this is that being on a set does not separate an action from a person. The things I mentioned were minor, and no problem at all. If a teeny thing like kissing causes embarrassment, how about a big thing like a sex scene.
It might cause even more embarrassment. So what? Embarrassment isn't fatal, and they'll get over it in a few hours, if not minutes. They're not being forced into anything; if they don't want to do it, they can leave and look for a role that doesn't pose such a risk of catching cooties.

I was embarrassed the first time I sang karaoke. I'll bet most actors were embarrassed the first time they got on stage, and the first time they appeared nude or in a sex scene, even as adults, but they manage to get along just fine.

I'd question that a kid has no objection to something like this. Perhaps if the kid had done it in real life, she wouldn't, but I'm assuming a standard issue inexperienced kid.
Back when I was a standard issue inexperienced kid, I would've jumped at an opportunity like this. That inexperience was something I wanted to shed, as do a lot of teenagers.

The parents of the kids who dies in the Vic Morrow incident were there, after all. I'd rather be safe and say no.
Er...

Morrow died on the set of Twilight Zone: The Movie while holding two small children (Myca Dinh Le and Renee Shin-Yi Chen). A helicopter being used on the set spun out of control and crashed, decapitating him and one of the children with its blades. (Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vic_Morrow))

You seem to think something really dangerous and harmful might happen, although you can't come up with anything specific besides embarrassment... but comparing it to a helicopter decapitation? What on earth do you think is involved in a Hollywood sex scene?