Underage Actors and Sex Scenes

[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.
The OFR board backs down

[Voyager]

@Martin Hyde

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]

@DMC

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]

@Rysto

“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]

@Cervaise

In Kansas, no less, if memory serves.

Oklahoma.

[Cervaise]

Thanks. Clearly my memory does not serve.

[Kalhoun]

@Martin Hyde

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]

@Tapioca Dextrin

Oklahoma.

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

I’m going to need a cite for that.

[saoirse]

@JRDelirious

…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]

@saoirse

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]

@DMC

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:

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]

@Kalhoun

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]

@Feydeau

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]

@Feydeau

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]

@Miller

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]

@Feydeau

“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]

@Kalhoun

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. 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** 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.

©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.

© 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…]