There’s also the distinction of “porn” vs “legitimate” cinema. It’s a fine line, but an important one. An 18 year old playing an underage girl in a non-porn movie is different from an 18 year old being made up to look like a 13 year old in a porn movie. I think if laws were made that required production companies to provide on demand proof that all women who appeared nude were 18 or older, there would be less incentive to produce such faux-child porn movies. Make them jump through so many hoops that it becomes not worth the while. Larger companies producing legitimate films would be less open to scrutiny, since everything is so over-the-table anyway, and they would be very unlikely to try to sneak underage girls through the system.
As I stated above, porn houses frequently go out of their way to make the girls look younger than they are. And if that results in certain women being unable to make pornos… well, I’m sorry, but I think the rights of the pedophilia victims that we’re trying to protect with these laws trump the rights of the porn stars.
First of all, I would like to point out that the legal definition of minor is not necessarily just. I would suggest that sexual matters are too complicated to say that all those under 18 cannot consent to sex and all those over can. I am sure that there are adults who are taken advantage and “minors” who are perfectly capable of consenting to sex. It would be better to judge such things on a case by case basis, especially when one is participating in an ethical argument.
Now, onto the main subject. Some here have suggested that child pornography, real or illusion, can be easily classified as “terrible” in the realm of ethics. This is not so. I would agree that pre-pubescent children cannot truly consent to the making of a pornographic film. However, in the case of adults who are made to look as though they are pre-pubescent, the adults consent. So, the pornography is not harming those involved in production. This being the case, who, exactly, is harmed by such pornography? Those who seek out child pornography are, unless I have overlooked something, already pedophiles. The pornography does not make them develop a preference for children. If anything, it is quite possible that such pornography would provide a harmless outlet for such emotions. Would you rather have a pedophile masturbate or act out their fantasies with real children? Unless someone can prove that child pornography causes pedophiles to act on their fantasies, it cannot be considered harmful.
I think this is already happening. I’ve seen some movies that begin with legal text such as “This film was produced on October 12, 2000. All records relating to the production of this film are kept at 123 Main St., San Jose, California.” And I suspect proof of age is one of those records.
Why would that reduce the incentive to produce faux-child porn? If anything, I think an affirmation that it was legal would provide more of an incentive, especially in comparison to producing illegal child porn.
We see the same thing with alcohol licensing, for example. Any minor will tell you it’s easier to buy illegal drugs than alcohol, because people who sell alcohol have an incentive to stay within the law by checking ID, while people who sell illegal drugs are going to jail if they get caught no matter what.
If there’s a market for sexual videos of women who appear to be underage, someone who enters that market is going to want to keep it legal by using young-looking adult actresses. However, if faux-child porn is outlawed, there’s no incentive to use adult actresses when children are likely to work for less pay.
If you could be certain paedophiles used such pictures as a soley as a masturbatory aid, you might have a point. However, there would be other uses, for example, using the pictures to convince children that such activities are normal.
For those interested, this paper includes discussion on how such media can be used to exploit children.
This argument comes up all the time, and I just don’t buy it. I once started a thread asking for any evidence at all to support these claims that kiddie porn may actually reduce a pedophile’s urge to molest real children, or to put it more broadly that exposure to a specific sort of pornography would reduce the urge of a person already inclined towards that kind of sex act to engage in it, and no one could come up with anything.
If anything, it seems to me that exposure to kiddie porn would make pedophiles more likely to molest children. I know I wouldn’t want to be left alone with, say, a man who got off on violent rape but had been “reducing his urges” by the means of repeated viewings of fake but realistic-looking rape porn.
You raise a valid point, but I disagree with you. The age of consent laws are based on the premise that children (in general) are not emotionally and psychologically responsible enough to make the decision of whether or not to have sex, while adults are. True, there may be 14 year olds who are perfectly capable of deciding for themselves, and there may be 25 year olds who aren’t. 18 seems a pretty good age to draw a line. If there was no hard, fast line, there would be no way to enforce this law. People would start arguing that if 18 was okay, then 17 must be fine. If 17 is okay, why not 16? How about 15? Eventually, precedence would allow people to boff 12 year olds, and there would be little we could do about it, short of mob justice. The way the law is set now, there is some wiggle room - it’s called looking the other way. If an 18 year old has sex with his 17.5 year old girlfriend, authorities aren’t going to be jumping on it (in most cases). 19 vs 17? Maybe, but probably still safe. However, if a 40 year old has sex with a 15 year old, it’s really easy to nail him, without having to prove that the girl wasn’t responsible enough to make the decision. Face it, the majority of people under 18 have no business having sex - they’re just not ready. Hell, I’d say the majority of people who have never had sex before, regardless of age, are not emotionally ready. But 18 seems like a good dividing line.
I’m glad you concede that pre-pubescent porn is bad. As I implied above, these laws aren’t made to protect 17-year-olds so much as to protect the very young. But you have to draw a line somewhere. As far as the consenting adults being made to look like kids, the arguments are two-fold: it complicates searches for the real thing, and it may (or may not) encourage potential pedophiles to act out their fantasies in the real world. As I stated before, first amendment rights are nice and all, but they should not be put before the public safety.
You have just described the reality of porn right now, and for many years already. These laws already exist, and porn producers have been jumping through these hoops for quite awhile.
You make think it’s safe to assume, but you’d be, funnily enough, “just wrong”.
If the argument you make here is ever allowed to prevail, then it has to be applied first and foremost to violence before we ever bother with fringe stuff like kiddie porn. Does allowing fake violence legitimize the practice to such an extent that the wackjobs who like it no longer feel as stigmatized, thus perpetuating the problem of senseless violence? Well, when you look at Hollywood movies…
You just can’t go there, Jeff. That slope is so slippery you and your rights will end up in a broken heap at the bottom of it inside a minute. So sez I, but more importantly, so sez the SCOTUS, thank the gods.
Ive heard this brought up before, the film in question i believe was 'Noce blanche ’ and was released in november 1989 or there abouts. now Vanessa Paradis was born in November 1972 so if the facts are correct she actually was under 18 when she filmed the scenes. (all dates and details got from IMDB ).
So does that mean the film is illegal? is 18 the legal age in all countries?
You’re right. It was “Noce Blanche”. As for the movie being illegal, I suppose it would depend on the country. It most certainly wasn’t illegal here, since it was broadcasted on one of the main TV station. Also, there’s no law forbidding films or pictures depicting nude minors (as opposed to porn involving minors). I don’t know whether it would be illegal in the US or not, but I would suspect that several posters would be willing to ban it regardless (by the way, it’s a rather poor movie).
As for the legal age, no. The age of consent here is 15 (except when the adult has authority on the minor : parent, teacher, priest, police officer, etc…in which case it’s still considered statutory rape). And actually, the age of consent in most countries is under 18. It ranges from 13 to 21, IIRC, and usually is in the 15-16 range. I posted a link to a site which add a sum up of the age of consent worldwide some time ago here. I can’t remember the adress, but you could find it easily by googling “age of consent”.
Here’s the link to the site listing the age of consent worldwide and in the different US states I was refering to.
Also, perhaps I wasn’t clear : the age of consent here is 15, but still pornographic material involving underage people is forbidden. A 15 y.o. can consent to have sex with you, but can’t give consent to appear in your next X-rated movie (nor he/she can watch a X-rated movie, which is rather paradoxical, when you think about it).
i was under the impression, but never really thought to research it that in the UK it was illegal for anyone under 18 to appear naked on film or in print, which would in theory make ‘Noce Blanche’ illegal to show over here (though it has been showen I seem to rememebr)? I guess where i might be getting it wrong is the differentiation between naked and sex?
Yes, we’ve heard that one. Doesn’t convince me. Heck, what happens with a Traci Lords type, who at 15 looks and acts grown up? That’s already illegal, and it would go undetected. What IS “looking like a minor”? It casts too wide a net: would it require that nobody be in porn unless they’re 35+ and look it? If what’s on the screen looks like an ambiguously youthful teen/young adult (come on, they won’t look like children, unless they have a grave hormonal defect), just card 'em: ask to see the producer’s documents or speak to the involved parties. Legit smut peddlers with a livelihood to protect will take care, uncaring sleazes will be busted. As to the makers of actual child porn, they work underground as a criminal enterprise already, anyway, not caring about ANY laws.
It’s up to the DA to prove that person on the screen IS a minor, not just dressed like one (for the 5 minutes she is dressed). However hard it is. Because it is about protecting actual minors from actual harm. If it’s consenting adults all the way, or images clearly and demonstrably sourced from pure imagination (CG or drawings), keep it legal. If it creeps people out they won’t watch it.
Of course there would be. If someone is incapable of giving informed consent, there must be a way to determine that, right? Otherwise the phrase “incapable of giving consent” would be meaningless because we could never be sure about anyone. So we apply the test to individuals.
For example, to work in many foodservice jobs, you need to get a food handling permit from the state. When you apply for the permit, you take a test to show that you know the dangers of improperly handled food and how to prevent them.
We don’t just assume everyone over 18 knows how to handle food and everyone below that age doesn’t. While that may be true in general (for some age, at least), it’s unfair to deny someone under 18 a foodservice job when he knows how to handle food, and it’s dangerous to allow someone over 18 to work in foodservice when he doesn’t know to wash off vegetables.
“Looking the other way” isn’t something we should have to rely on. Making a broad category of acts illegal and then selectively enforcing the law is a recipe for abuse and corruption.
Maybe my buddy Officer Smith knows me and my hypothetical 17-year-old girlfriend, he knows she’s mature, and he’s willing to look the other way. But what about Officer Jones, who’s carrying a grudge because I took him to court for a traffic ticket and won on a technicality?
Sure, it’d be easy to convict someone without proving he really harmed anyone, but is that a good thing? If it were illegal to wear a ski mask, it’d be easy to “nail” a lot of alleged bank robbers, without having to prove they’ve ever robbed a bank. But why do we want them in jail: because they’re wearing a ski mask or because they’re robbing banks? That kind of shortcut only makes innocent people into criminals.
If we have no evidence that the guy robbed a bank, why should he be in jail? Likewise, if we have no evidence the 15 year old girl “wasn’t responsible enough” (just what does that mean, anyway?), why should the 40 year old man be in jail?
Face it, the majority of bald assertions without evidence to back them up are false.
