Should we reduce the legal age for pornography to 16? (1 Viewer)

[Serius]

Bullshit.

Don't play semantics and base an argument on the word 'acting'. While the people are acting in their responses - orgasm, arousal, vocal aspects - they are not 'acting' intercourse, they're actually doing it. It's prostitution and it having aspects of performance doesn't remove that fact.

We also do have 'nanny' laws restricting minors participation in other industries and, you're forgetting that the sixteen year old would not necessarily have primary access to their capital when earned. Allowing sixteen year old persons to participate in sexual acts on camera with their guardian's permission and possibly to their guardian's profit is horrendous and is what sexual abuse is all about, the exertion of sexual pressures by someone in a position of power over you. No no no no.

Further, there is a difference in that an eighteen year old is considered legally responsible for their own decisions; legally and financially. A sixteen year old is not considered responsible. If the decision comes back to bite the eighteen year old then tough luck but at the age of sixteen these things aren't meant to come back to bite you in the arse, no pun intended. You also forget that many businesses have 'morality clauses', appearing in porn can get you fired and this shit could ruin the future of someone who couldn't possibly make that decision, at least criminal records get sealed if you're a minor.

It isnt semantics, it is the law. If you want to open up your own discusion on wether staring on pornography is acting or prostitution feel free, but for the purposes of this discussion we are using the legal definition that it is acting.

They dont have primary access to their money? thats not something i really considered, i know when i was working i did, but yeah couldnt you say the minor could be exploited like that in any job anyway?

and well yeah, there is the financial and legal positions, all excellent points you have raised, it would be good to see you go into more detail with that, i want to see where you take it. I wouldnt say "many" businesses would have a problem if you were in porn, besides it would be hard for them to find out but yeah i see your point, it sucks that the society we live in would have legal reasons to not give you a job based on another legal job you have done beforehand just because they see it is "immoral".

nooooo wayy, keep the legal age at 18, who wants to see people still going through puberty having sex, common there is plenty of pornos anyway, unless of course your a pedofile and like looking at people that havnt fully "matured"

I dont think you know what paedophilia is.... go look it up, it certainly isnt sexual attraction to 16yr olds, which is perfectly legal and fine considering you can fuck them.
Besides, if it was i could post up pictures of a variety of girls both 16 and 18 and you have to say if you would hit it or not, if you get it wrong we get to call you a paedophile

My point is of course that you cant tell always the difference between a 16yr old and an 18yr old based on appearances alone.

 

[SnowFox]

I think he meant viewing pornography.

On the whole, I argue on side with religion. Pornography should never be legalised. It harms the perfect relationship that one can ultimately posses with God, through Jesus.

And for those who cbf worshipping a myth?

Isnt pornography a skewed version of prostitution, but both parties (or numerous, depending if its a group act like cronulla sharks) are being paid though?

 

[lala2]

I think we should. How can ppl have sex at 16 and not view other ppl having sex? Or, the other option which is more appealing to my conservative values, is to raise the age of consent to 18. But I can hear the outcry of what, I can't have sex yet?! From all the 16 and 17 year olds.

 

[thisnameistaken]

fucken hell, its just sex, so what

 

[Empyrean444]

As for the whole "coming back to haunt you" crap, do you really think someone would make this decision lightly? i am pretty sure they would know what they are getting into. Also, 18yr olds arent all that much smarter, should they be "protected" from decisions they might regret aswell? if the government doesnt trust 16yr olds to make responsible decisions about sex[including whether to work with it or not] then raise the age to 18....but if they want to keep it at 16, then all the jobs associated with it need to be legal as well [unless of course it has elements of something a 16yr old cant do e.g.....i dunno, stripping cause its a bar and you need to be 18 to be in there.]

To the underlined, I would say that there are a great deal many people who would take the decision lightly. A recruiting agent for any porn producer could, for example, make an appeal to the 16's/their parents' (depending which line of argument we take) pride or vanity and hence, quite easily, beguile them into the industry. Flattery alone is a powerful tool. And, quite simply, I think that a significant number of people aged thus would be impetuous and thence would not bring the consequences into the consideration - would act on impulse. A large proportion of people - most especially of the age bracket in question - tend to look toward the immediate without due attention to the long term implications of an action. In this case, there is little immediate reason to feel trepidation - indeed the appeal of money and possibly initial satisfaction / sense of achievement will be paramount within their spheres of thought. THese can very easily displace the later embarassment they might experience.

To the emboldened, I would say the majority of 18year olds would be better informed than when they were 16 regardless of the magnitude of this gain. I would trust many more 18 olds to their own judgement than 16. While I believe that their may very well be few 16 year olds with the adequate faculties of judgement necessary for the decision, I think they would not be an exceedingly high % and that, regardless, they can wait the two years for the sake of a law protecting the many.

Moreover, starring in a porn is of a very different nature to all other kinds of work which are legal at 16, and has stronger and more easily emergable potentialities which normal sex does not (the possibilities of future, widescale embarassment, social stigma and hindrances in gaining later employment come to mind). I think it is the acknowledgement of this difference in nature which must set it as a singularity. On the other hand, the age of possession /consumption/viewing etc should be lowered.

 

[Uncle]

fucken hell, its just sex, so what

maybe you dont mind sex with little boys and destroying their innocence.

 

[Tully B.]

I'm afraid I must fundamentally disagree with you.

On the topic of pornography, there are many natural scientists, and especially physicists, who continue to reject the notion that the disciplines concerned with social and cultural criticism can have anything to contribute, except perhaps peripherally, to their research. Still less are they receptive to the idea that the very foundations of their worldview must be revised or rebuilt in the light of such criticism. Rather, they cling to the dogma imposed by the long post-Enlightenment hegemony over the Western intellectual outlook, which can be summarized briefly as follows: that there exists an external world, whose properties are independent of any individual human being and indeed of humanity as a whole; that these properties are encoded in "eternal'' physical laws; and that human beings can obtain reliable, albeit imperfect and tentative, knowledge of these laws by hewing to the "objective'' procedures and epistemological strictures prescribed by the (so-called) scientific method.

I'm afraid I must fundamentally not understand a word you said. Can someone please translate this into English?

 

[Serius]

To the underlined, I would say that there are a great deal many people who would take the decision lightly. A recruiting agent for any porn producer could, for example, make an appeal to the 16's/their parents' (depending which line of argument we take) pride or vanity and hence, quite easily, beguile them into the industry. Flattery alone is a powerful tool. And, quite simply, I think that a significant number of people aged thus would be impetuous and thence would not bring the consequences into the consideration - would act on impulse. A large proportion of people - most especially of the age bracket in question - tend to look toward the immediate without due attention to the long term implications of an action. In this case, there is little immediate reason to feel trepidation - indeed the appeal of money and possibly initial satisfaction / sense of achievement will be paramount within their spheres of thought. THese can very easily displace the later embarassment they might experience.

To the emboldened, I would say the majority of 18year olds would be better informed than when they were 16 regardless of the magnitude of this gain. I would trust many more 18 olds to their own judgement than 16. While I believe that their may very well be few 16 year olds with the adequate faculties of judgement necessary for the decision, I think they would not be an exceedingly high % and that, regardless, they can wait the two years for the sake of a law protecting the many.

Moreover, starring in a porn is of a very different nature to all other kinds of work which are legal at 16, and has stronger and more easily emergable potentialities which normal sex does not (the possibilities of future, widescale embarassment, social stigma and hindrances in gaining later employment come to mind). I think it is the acknowledgement of this difference in nature which must set it as a singularity. On the other hand, the age of possession /consumption/viewing etc should be lowered.

Flattery? so what employers can do that now. Do you think flattery makes people take a serious decision lightly? oh hey you are really gorgeous, wanna get fucked by 3 black guys while we film it?

All you have given are little bullshit reasons that make little sense, nothing based on logic...its like, iam trying to find out why this law exists and all i am hearing is "well because sex is immoral"

Your whole argument is they shouldnt do it because they might get embarassed? okay..... and hinderences with employment, well wouldnt that be descrimination? You shouldnt be able to refuse a job to someone simply because they used to have another legal job that you find distasteful.

It was a mistake to describe it as being different from prostitution. Any similarity is only relevant if we assume that the current legal age for prostitution is correct. I would argue that it should also be lowered to sixteen, for much the same reasons.

Something that someone else raised, should we reduce the legal age for prostitution to 16? After all much of the same logic applies, sex is legal at 16, prostitution is inherently legal in our society [just at 18] and working is of course legal, we are allowed to sell our goods and services and at 16 thyey are allowed to sweat and sell their muscles and their hard work lifting boxes or whatever doing one kind of legal manual labour, why cant they similiarly sell their body doing another kind.

 

[zazzy1234]

personally i believe the legal age for sex should be 30 or above and pornography just should band all together

 

[Uncle]

personally i believe the legal age for sex should be 30 or above and pornography just should band all together

30 is kewl.
maybe thats when their first wrinkle starts kicking in.
but then raise it to 69 years old.
time and time again there are disputes over 'is she 18 or above?'.