|
May 06, 2007
the graying of kiddie porn?
Writing in Friday's Wall Street Journal, Garance Franke-Ruta argues that the age of consent should be raised -- for "providing erotic content": It is time to raise the age of consent from 18 to 21 -- "consent," in this case, referring not to sexual relations but to providing erotic content on film.Yes and a woman of 21 may be physically indistinguishable from one who is 25, but they are also developmentally worlds apart. The same could be said about the difference between 25 and 30. Nevertheless, Franke-Ruta argues that "there ought to be a law" -- to save women from their own bad judgment: ...a 21-year-old barrier would save a lot of young women from being manipulated into an indelible error, while burdening the world's next Joe Francis with an aptly limited supply of "talent." And it would surely have a tonic cultural effect. We are so numb to the coarse imagery around us that we have come to accept not just pornography itself -- long since routinized -- but its "barely legal" category. "Girls Gone Wild" -- like its counterparts on the Web -- is treated as a kind of joke. It isn't. There ought to be a law.I'm wondering how a law like that would work. Considering that young people often film each other, suppose an 18 year old films an 18 year old. Are they both to be arrested, or only the one holding the camera? Aren't both just as culpable? How could such a statute be written without pushing childhood further and further into adulthood? So, once possession of erotic images of humans under 21 becomes a crime, if a guy and a girl (or two guys, or two girls) exchange pictures of each other, they all go to the slammer, right? In order to "protect" themselves from "indelible errors." Um, but isn't having a criminal record even more of an "indelible error" than an appearance in an irresponsible college film? What is entirely unclear to me is whether the 18 year old is a provider or a victim. Certainly, it's easy to see actual children as victims of child pornography. But 18 year olds are not children under criminal law, and this is a criminal statute which is being advocated. So what do they become? Adult victims of crime to which they consented (and in which they conspired), but for which they may not be prosecuted? What I want to know is if they film and sell their own pictures of themselves, who gets arrested? Who goes to prison? It's probably worth pointing out that Ms. Franke-Ruta is on the "left." But is she on what Dinesh D'Souza calls the "cultural left," that's destroying the country and inflaming traditional Muslims? I think D'Souza should embrace her, for what she's advocating is a major leap forward towards the goal of ending pornography. (In the name of infantilization, of course.) But who's going to protect the 21 to 25 year old children?
Might that be the idea? MORE: I don't know what Garance Franke-Ruta's exact positions are on abortion. But assuming she's against things like parental notification and the rest of it, might this be a good time for her to revisit the issue? I mean, under what theory are 18 year-old women too immature to consent to subjecting their bodies to a camera, but mature enough to subject their bodies and fetuses to a scalpel? UPDATE: Jon Swift thinks Franke-Ruta's proposal to raise the age of camera consent does not go far enough: Can a girl of 21 really know what she is consenting to when she signs a release form for a pornographer? Does she really understand what the ramifications might be later in life? That is why I propose that we raise the minimum age of consent to participate in pornography to 65.There are also excellent career opportunities for senior citizens. Read it all! posted by Eric on 05.06.07 at 02:08 PM
Comments
I do find it odd that the people proposing such laws think it's just fine for someone aged 18 to have sex with any random adult, or group of adults, in any number (in series or parallel) ... just so long as nobody's taking a picture of it. If someone of that age is not "adult" enough to consent to having their picture taken while having sex, it seems obvious they're not "adult" enough to have sex at all. (Plus, if the age limit is raised to 21, "barely legal" doesn't go away. It just becomes 21-year-olds, not 18-year-olds. As long as there's a limit, people will want pornographic actors just the legal side of it.) Sigivald · May 7, 2007 06:05 PM Post a comment
You may use basic HTML for formatting.
|
|
May 2007
WORLD-WIDE CALENDAR
Search the Site
E-mail
Classics To Go
Archives
May 2007
April 2007 March 2007 February 2007 January 2007 December 2006 November 2006 October 2006 September 2006 August 2006 July 2006 June 2006 May 2006 April 2006 March 2006 February 2006 January 2006 December 2005 November 2005 October 2005 September 2005 August 2005 July 2005 June 2005 May 2005 April 2005 March 2005 February 2005 January 2005 December 2004 November 2004 October 2004 September 2004 August 2004 July 2004 June 2004 May 2004 April 2004 March 2004 February 2004 January 2004 December 2003 November 2003 October 2003 September 2003 August 2003 July 2003 June 2003 May 2003 May 2002 AB 1634 See more archives here Old (Blogspot) archives
Recent Entries
Forgotten revolutionary
"There's nothing that this man doesn't do!" "Like All Things Spanish, It Is Dangerous" Me? I'm Just A Liberal Arts Major Bussard Interstellar Ramjet: 1970 Home Information Systems: 1919 Wet Nanotech: 1938 Friendly skies Dry Nanotech: 1937 I only debate myself here! (But occasionally I break my rule)
Links
Site Credits
|
|
It sounds like the kiddie-porn prosecution industry is suffering from a lack of growth. Nothing like expanding the boundaries to spur more employment!