The Age Of Consent For Acting In Porn Should Be Raised To 21
| May 4th, 2007Garance Franke-Ruta, in an op-ed published by OpinionJournal, argues that people below age 21 should not legally be able to consent to appear in porn.
But the “Girls Gone Wild” problem concerns adult porn: At what age is a girl ready to make that decision, one that she will live with–technologically speaking, at least–for the rest of her life? A woman of 18 may be physically indistinguishable from one who is 21, but they are developmentally worlds apart. […]
A new legal age for participating in the making of erotic imagery–that is, for participating in pornography–would most likely [be] sometimes honored in the breach more than the observance. But 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 [”Girls Gone Wild” owner] 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.
On her own blog, Garance explains further:
…Our laws recognize that maturity comes slowly. In addition to the minimum drinking age of 21, the minimum age for entering Congress is 25, and for the Senate, 30. Many jurisdictions make 21 the baseline minimum for holding state senatorial or other government positions, while others use 25 as their local baseline. Several states have a 30-year-old minimum for the governorships, and we’re all familiar with the 35 year minimum that exists for the presidency.
Under what I am suggesting — which is really, at this point, more a general principle for legislation than a fully worked out proposal (I’m no lawyer) — women and men under 21 would retain the right to flash anyone they wanted or take photos for personal use, under the theory that the people a law is intended to protect should not be punished under it. All that would be lost is young men and women’s ability to participate in commercial enterprises looking to sell their erotic images, and the risk of involuntary distribution of their non-commercial images. Women and men would gain a greater right to control their own erotic images until age 21. The anti-porn laws we have now are much, much stronger than the one initially passed in the late 1970s, and what I was thinking of is something a bit more like that initial legislation, which would provide women and men with a tool to control their own images and prevent exploitation, but not result in any kind of massive prosecutorial crackdown per se. The intent would be to expand the zone of privacy for young men and women. The key factors to be regulated would be commercial use of images and unwanted use of non-commercial images.
I think it’s slippery of Garance to say “Women and men would gain a greater right to control their own erotic images until age 21″; no doubt there are some people who would actively want to sell their own images for commercial exploitation, and this law would force them to wait until their twenty-first birthday. So only certain people — those who consent in (often drunken) haste and then repent at length — would gain more control under this law.
But I still agree with Garance’s proposal. Yes, some people would be prevented from doing what they want by this law; it’s also the case that some people want to work for less than the minimum wage. Some workers would prefer to have laxer worker safety standards because they believe they could get more work that way. For that matter, it’s no doubt the case that there are some 15-year-olds out there who would like to be able to be paid to appear in porn.
In all these cases, that some people’s interests are harmed in order to provide other people with greater protection is an acceptable trade-off. (This is even more true of an age restriction law, which harms some people’s interests only temporarily.)
May 4th, 2007 at 1:20 pm
great idea.
And there’s another side benefit: While it’s surely possible to find 21 year olds who “look like” 16 year olds, I’m guessing it’s probably more difficult to do. Perhaps this would cut down on the “barely legal” and “looks like high schoolers” brand of porn. That would only be a good thing.
This comment was written by Sailorman.Report this comment to the moderators
May 4th, 2007 at 1:32 pm
[…] The always thoughtful Ampersand at Alas, A Blog has more. […]
This comment was written by theGarance.com » The Law is a Flexible Instrument.Report this comment to the moderators
May 4th, 2007 at 1:43 pm
Does it really matter? I think an 18 year old is and should be old enough to make her own decisions. It also squicks me out that the viewers/purveyers of porn have thier rights protected as free speech, but the state is proposing to go all paternalistic on young women. Great.
This comment was written by Q Grrl.Report this comment to the moderators
May 4th, 2007 at 2:21 pm
Q Grrl, what would a happy solution be for you in terms of pornography?
Total ban? Total permissiveness?
No hostility, just asking.
—Myca
This comment was written by Myca.Report this comment to the moderators
May 4th, 2007 at 2:33 pm
“Perhaps this would cut down on the “barely legal” and “looks like high schoolers” brand of porn. That would only be a good thing.”
Good god yes. Those disgusting almost a pedophile porns just perpetuate the idea of young girls being sexualized objects.
This comment was written by pheeno.Report this comment to the moderators
May 4th, 2007 at 2:40 pm
I think this is a pretty reasonable restriction, overall.
My only concern is the growing number of laws that treat teenagers as adults when it comes to punishment but children when it comes to rights. As long as we’re consistent, I don’t mind one way or the other, really.
—Myca
This comment was written by Myca.Report this comment to the moderators
May 4th, 2007 at 3:00 pm
Well, Q Grrl and I are in agreement! And I think that the irony you note is spot on. Limiting individual rights because “we know better” is the epitome of what government in America is not supposed to do.
Of course there are good reasons for limiting the individual right to do something as a function of age. After all, you can’t drink until you’re 21. But that seems mostly to ensure that people first don’t do harm to other people and then don’t do harm to themselves - not to stop the production of something that the proposers of the law don’t like.
They already have a tool to control their own images and prevent exploitation. In order to appear in one of these videos you have to 1) take your clothes off in public, and 2) sign a model release. Don’t do either one or the other and you won’t have a problem. It’s a choice, it’s not something that someone else does to you.
This legislation isn’t giving people a tool to control their own images and prevent exploitation, it’s taking them away. Funny how people who would condemn others for trying to legislate morality are quick enough to do so themselves.
This comment was written by RonF.Report this comment to the moderators
May 4th, 2007 at 3:09 pm
I think raising the age to 21 is a good idea, personally. Which may surprise people, but I do. There is a big difference, over all, between 18-21 in emotional arenas. And considering all that goes into porn, from the acts themselves to the contracts to the very real fact that what a porn performer does will be out there, immortalized for all and it may very well affect relationships and future employement…well, I think the average 21 year old is far more equiped to handle that than the average 18 year old.
This comment was written by RenegadeEvolution.Report this comment to the moderators
May 4th, 2007 at 3:13 pm
Of course, the context surrounding those “choices” will be ignored completely. Like, how many of those 18 year olds venture into the porn industry because of previous molestation and rape. And the number that get hooked on drugs because they have to dope thmselves to the gills before excercising their “choices”. Doesnt sound so voluntary if you have to shoot up just to get the courage to do something.
This comment was written by pheeno.Report this comment to the moderators
May 4th, 2007 at 3:17 pm
I’m a bit torn on this one, but on the whole I think I have to agree with RonF and Q Grrl. (Plus, who knows, I may never get another chance to write that.) To prevent “OMG I was drunk and had no idea what I was signing” I wonder if it would be possible to require two releases signed a certain amount of time (3 days, say) apart — but I’m not sure even about that as it would treat the decision to appear in porn differently from any other decision.
This comment was written by Lu.Report this comment to the moderators
May 4th, 2007 at 3:19 pm
If the 21-year-old drinking law is her model, then “[it] would most likely [be] sometimes honored in the breach more than the observance. ” is the understatement of the year.
This comment was written by Stentor.Report this comment to the moderators
May 4th, 2007 at 3:23 pm
I have to say that I find the government’s and society at large’s ability to regulate “adulthood” as many different ages disturbing. There should be an age at which (barring tests for competency that we would not be allowed to introduce) that determines when you are an adult. The decision to star in porn or to vote is no different, both require adult choices and should be taken with a responsible view in mind.
To that end I think the age for drinking, sex, smoking, pornography etc should all be the age of adulthood whatever that may be.
This comment was written by Chris.Report this comment to the moderators
May 4th, 2007 at 3:31 pm
I wonder if it would be possible to require two releases signed a certain amount of time (3 days, say) apart
Well, now; there are plenty of consumer laws that enable you to cancel purchase contracts within 3 days of signing them. This might be worth considering. The 18-year old retains the right to make porn, but can reconsider their choice.
The decision to star in porn or to vote is no different,
Yeah, you’re liable to get f**ked either way.
Amp, I think you should host a contest on the most creative way to complete that sentence.
This comment was written by RonF.Report this comment to the moderators
May 4th, 2007 at 3:33 pm
I don’t see why we can’t just require sober consent if we want a new law. Ideally we could just convict Francis of rape. (Assuming someone has evidence for the stories I’ve heard.)
This comment was written by hf.Report this comment to the moderators
May 4th, 2007 at 3:50 pm
My only concern is the growing number of laws that treat teenagers as adults when it comes to punishment but children when it comes to rights.
I think this is the result of our disagreement on where the line between child and adult is, and what difference the transition makes, if any. For me the difference is being able to make decisions that affect your welfare and the welfare of others, and being fully accountable for those decisions. Accountability for your decisions assumes you have accumulated sufficient experience to judge the outcome, and I’m not comfortable with the level of wisdom that 18 year olds possess about the effects of a porn industry on themselves or on society.
I doubt most 21 year olds know enough either, but I’m more comfortable accepting them as the masters of their own destiny at 21 than 18.
This comment was written by CJ.Report this comment to the moderators
May 4th, 2007 at 4:15 pm
No, and I accept that . . . what I have a problem with is the idea that an 18 year old is too young to make decisions about her naked image, but OH SWEET JESUS, IF SHE”S CAUGHT WITH SOME POT, IT’S PRISON FOR SURE, BECAUSE SHE”S A GROWNUP, BY GOD!
I’m not saying that she’s not too young to make decisions about her naked image, just that if that’s the case, shouldn’t we cut her some damn slack when it comes to the pot?
—Myca
This comment was written by Myca.Report this comment to the moderators
May 4th, 2007 at 4:21 pm
In other words, my issue is with the idea that there are some adults who can be arrested, tried, and punished as adults, but who we still give the rights of children. I don’t really care which one changes . . . either give them full adult rights or try them as children, but the situation as it stands is pretty unfair, IMO.
This comment was written by Myca.Report this comment to the moderators
May 4th, 2007 at 5:13 pm
Uh, for a lot of women (and many men) who don’t have the benefit of college, doing sex work (including stripping, escorting, porn and phone sex) is a great way to pay the bills until they can land a good-enough day job. This proposal smacks of the perspective of people who never worried about making the rent.
This comment was written by Mithras.Report this comment to the moderators
May 4th, 2007 at 5:23 pm
Myca, right on. The way we treat minors as immature and incompetent, right up to the moment they do something bad, at which point we want them to take full adult responsibility for their actions, is shockingly hypocritical and it needs to stop.
In any democracy, the government derives its legitimacy from the consent of the governed. The principle at the heart of “no taxation without representation” is that laws can only be legitimately enforced against people who are given a chance to vote, to decide what those laws will be. If minors aren’t allowed to vote, then it’s unjust and offensive to hold them responsible for breaking laws, at least to the same degree as we’d hold an adult - which is why we have a juvenile justice system anyway.
This idea of raising the age of consent for porn to 21 is just stupid. When you turn 18, you can lock yourself into a mortgage, start a pack-a-day habit, or ship off to die in Iraq. How can anyone possibly be mature enough to do that, but still too immature to get paid for a few nude photos?
This comment was written by Jesse.Report this comment to the moderators
May 4th, 2007 at 5:54 pm
It’s an interesting idea. But I find it kind of ironic … It’s meant to protect women between the ages of 18 and 21 from being exploited by Joe Francis types, but has anyone considered the fact that the reason 18-21-year-olds are able to be exploited is - in addition to the fact that there are people like Joe Francis in the world - because they are drunk? And the drinking age is 21? So, in theory, it shouldn’t be a problem. The law already protects this demographic, by saying that they are too young to be out drinking. When they go out drinking, stuff like Girls Gone Wild happens.
I’m not saying that every woman who has been exploited this way has been drunk - but isn’t that typically the case (speaking as someone who has never seen the tapes)?
Frankly, I don’t condone Girls Gone Wild, but I find it a little hard to sympathize with people who get so incredibly drunk that they’d pose nude and do other idiotic things in front of a camera. Girls Gone Wild does exploit them, but they put themselves in a position to be exploited.
This comment was written by Eva Key.Report this comment to the moderators
May 4th, 2007 at 5:57 pm
I agree that we should restrict people from the ability to commercialize their sexuality. But why stop at an age restriction? Let’s just make it illegal to sell yourself in this fashion, period. If you want to make pornography, fine - First Amendment and all that. But you can’t pay people to do it.
This comment was written by Robert.Report this comment to the moderators
May 4th, 2007 at 6:25 pm
Eva Key, I think it might be true for the Girls Gone Wild series of videos, but we should keep in mind that there’s a lot more porn featuring 18-to-21 year olds than that. GGW just happens to be the only one with the business model of selling DVD subscriptions through late-night TV ads, and it seems that their “models” are mostly drunk girls at parties or frat houses or on spring break.
There are plenty of web sites, however, with sober women in studios or other settings. And then there are webcams, where women perform for a paying audience in their own homes (like “Nikki” on the show Heroes). It would be a mistake to restrict all of that just to address Girls Gone Wild-style exploitation.
This comment was written by Jesse.Report this comment to the moderators
May 4th, 2007 at 6:41 pm
A few people here have implied that we should have a single bright-line borderline between “child” and “adult,” and it’s inherently ridiculous to have different borderline ages for different activities.
I don’t see why this is so. In general, I think 16 year olds are capable of driving, but I’m okay with restrictions on posing nude for Playboy at that age. There’s no self-evident reason that all age restrictions must be set for the same age.
This comment was written by Ampersand.Report this comment to the moderators
May 4th, 2007 at 6:44 pm
When I was in college, somebody I knew posed as the centerfold in On Our Backs. I don’t know what she got paid, but I do know the experience was empowering for her. I’m pretty sure she was under 21. Not all porn is icky and gross. Not all under-21 year olds are incapable of making choices.
This comment was written by Les.Report this comment to the moderators
May 4th, 2007 at 6:46 pm
I’m not comfortable with being told I’m an adult on one hand for one thing, and then not an adult on the other hand for another thing. Some consistency would be nice.
Also? Economics? I mean, not everyone has the luxury of being able to depend on family/parents/social support network once they reach the age that parents are no longer legally obliged to support them. I don’t think it’s fair to restrict this kind of work while booting them out the door, especially since a high school diploma doesn’t get you much.
If you can’t consent to sex while under the influence, how can you consent to sex work/sign a valid contract?
This comment was written by Carnadosa.Report this comment to the moderators
May 4th, 2007 at 6:46 pm
Not all porn is icky and gross.
More to the point, what you consider “icky and gross” is not usually a sensible basis for legislation.
This comment was written by Mithras.Report this comment to the moderators
May 4th, 2007 at 6:48 pm
Ampersand, there may be legitimate reasons to set different age restrictions at different ages, based on how much “maturity” is required for the act in question. Driving doesn’t require much wisdom or judgment; it mainly requires knowing the rules of the road, knowing how to operate a car, and being able to reach the pedals and see over the steering wheel.
But you’d be hard pressed to convince anyone that accepting money for posing nude is a decision that requires *more* maturity than signing up for a long-term financial obligation, joining the military, or even buying cigarettes. The consequences of those include injury, death, and bankruptcy. The consequences of posing nude are pretty much limited to having strangers know what your body looks like without clothes (answer: pretty much like everyone else’s).
This comment was written by Jesse.Report this comment to the moderators
May 4th, 2007 at 6:52 pm
I think it’s inherently ridiculous to have an age that you are considered an adult under the law (ie, your parents are no longer obliged to support you and can boot you out) and then have other age milestones after that, especially ones that interfere with your ability to support yourself.
This comment was written by Carnadosa.Report this comment to the moderators
May 4th, 2007 at 7:00 pm
It’s interesting how issues of personal liberty become so cloudy whenever sex enters the picture. Otherwise reasonable and practical folks seem to lose all sense of proportion as well as analytical clarity.
One cannot coherently argue that young women are competent to decide when and with whom they will engage in sex, or whether they will or will not bring a pregnancy to term and simultaneously argue that they need paternalistic protection from the choice to be photographed in the nude. Whether one approves or disapproves of the choice made doesn’t enter in to it.
All that’s left, once this issue is resolved, is a matter of contract law: Whether or not one is legally competent to enter into a contract and what laws are appropriate in regulating the contract.
I really don’t see how you can amend the law in the fashion that Garance suggests unless you raise the age at which anyone may enter into a contract. Arbitrarily limiting the right of contract for an entire class of voting citizens based on nothing other than age strikes me as unworkable for reasons legal, economic and Constitutional.
The fundamentals seemed to have gotten lost. You see it in the sloppy comparisons to age limits on drinking , as though we were talking about vice rather than fundamental issues of civil and economic equity. Yes, GGW is exploitative, as is modeling , as is the fashion industry , as is cosmetic surgery, as is …well, pretty much most ways people make money in our culture. Exploitation and commodification are the name of the game. GGW and the general coarsening of popular culture are simply symptomatic. Relapsing into moralistic puritanism imposed by State fiat at the expense of depriving 18-20 year olds of their liberties, however well intentioned, won’t cure the desease.
This comment was written by W.B. Reeves.Report this comment to the moderators
May 4th, 2007 at 7:10 pm
Mithras wrote:
Well, I can’t speak for Garance, but I’ve certainly had to worry about making the rent in my life. Renagade Evolution (comment #8) does sex work for a living, and I assume she pays rent, yet she isn’t opposed to this proposal. So it’s not evident that only people who have never had to pay the rent could favor this proposal.
In general, the sort of objection you’re making, could be made against any regulation intended to provide protection to workers; all worker safety regulations, after all, in some way restrict the ways people are able to earn a living. But I don’t think we should therefore be against all worker safety regulations. In most cases, if a “job of last resort” is eliminated or put off-bounds by a new law, the result will be that some other job will become the new “job of last resort.”
This comment was written by Ampersand.Report this comment to the moderators
May 4th, 2007 at 7:16 pm
In general, the sort of objection you’re making, could be made against any regulation intended to provide protection to workers….
True. But this isn’t a worker-safety proposal. It’s an anti-porn proposal, with the justification offered that it protects workers by … stopping them from working.
Renagade Evolution (comment #8) does sex work for a living, and I assume she pays rent, yet she isn’t opposed to this proposal.
Did she do it when she under 21?
This comment was written by Mithras.Report this comment to the moderators
May 4th, 2007 at 7:47 pm
There’s a big difference between regulating worker safety, i.e. what kinds of activities can go on at a job site and what precautions must be taken, and banning an entire class of people from certain jobs based on a characteristic they have no control over. Regulating an industry is not the same as discriminating against people who wish to enter it.
Banning 18-21 year olds from working in porn because you think they might regret their decision later is like banning women from working in construction because you think they might hurt themselves lifting something heavy. I don’t think the mere fact that age is temporary and gender is (mostly) permanent makes one form of discrimination any less repugnant.
This comment was written by Jesse.Report this comment to the moderators
May 4th, 2007 at 8:31 pm
And you think changing the age will help with that? That seems like it would want different regulations, not necessarily age restrictions. (I’m honestly curious, because these emotional/mental scars seem like mostly separate issues to me but it’s not a very informed opinion).
This comment was written by Carnadosa.Report this comment to the moderators
May 4th, 2007 at 8:34 pm
Starve or fuck for money. Yeah, thats a choice.
This comment was written by pheeno.Report this comment to the moderators
May 4th, 2007 at 10:01 pm
Granted, pheeno. But if someone’s in such a sorry state that those are really her only choices, how exactly does it improve her life if you put a lock on door #2?
This comment was written by Rex Little.Report this comment to the moderators
May 4th, 2007 at 11:03 pm
How exactly does it improve her life to do something that for the majority leads to drug addiction and severe depression? Not to mention puts her in one of the largest group of rape vicitms? She has her rent paid…great. But now she’s an addict or alcoholic and has been raped. What a trade off.
And why do people insist on calling the starve or fuck for money a choice? Or empowerment for gods sake? How is giving men what they’ve always taken empowering? This industry hurts far far more women than it helps.
*not accusing you of making these claims, just asking questions in general
This comment was written by pheeno.Report this comment to the moderators
May 4th, 2007 at 11:26 pm
I don’t have an issue with different ages for different activities.
What I have an issue with is the trend I’ve seen of more and more rights being pushed upwards in age (it’s harder to get a driver’s license now than when I was 16, the drinking age has gone to 21 nationwide, this proposal) and simultaneously more and more freedom being given to prosecutors to try children as adults.
To me, that double standard is disturbing. We’re locking up kids in adult prisons who aren’t even old enough to vote to change the damn system.
The bright line isn’t the issue for me. I would have a hell of a lot less problem with the same trend exactly in reverse, although it wouldn’t establish a bright line either.
—Myca
This comment was written by Myca.Report this comment to the moderators
May 5th, 2007 at 12:15 am
Correct me (by citing evidence, please) if I’m wrong, but it’s always been my impression that drug addiction leads to prostitution (to support the habit) far more often than the other way around. As for rape, I should think it would be a lot less frequent where prostitution is legal (Nevada, Amsterdam), since the victim can call the police without being arrested herself. (I’m not stating this as a known fact, just an opinion; again, please cite contrary facts if you have them.)
Being allowed to choose something is more empowering than being forbidden, no matter how crappy or demeaning the choice is. And prostitutes don’t give men what they’ve always taken, they sell it. There’s a difference.
This comment was written by Rex Little.Report this comment to the moderators
May 5th, 2007 at 12:40 am
I thought this suggestion could be improved with just a small tweak that would make it even better:
This comment was written by Jon Swift.http://jonswift.blogspot.com/2007/05/raising-minimum-age-for-porn.html
Report this comment to the moderators
May 5th, 2007 at 6:15 am
I’m slightly confused about the suggestion and aren’t sure it would do what you want it to do.
You could make people below age 21 not legally able to consent to appear in porn. But, on consideration, Garance does not want this to happen because she doesn’t want people jailed for personal use. So she modifies the position on her blog to putting consent to the commercial distribution of images at 21.
What is stopping people appearing in such images at 18 and consenting to their distribution when they hit 21? Could you not make these images, perhaps distribute them abroad, and then consent to their distibution in the US when you hit 21.
You could do this another way. The reason GGW and commercialization exists is because of copyright law. If these images were not copyrighted, or copyright could not be legally transfered, then there wouldn’t be any legal basis upon which they could make profit. It’s all founded in IP law, if you change this you could destroy the commercial aspect.
This comment was written by james.Report this comment to the moderators
May 5th, 2007 at 7:21 am
I’ll be more than happy to provide it when I get home tonight. But I’d like to know why you’re not aware of it. It’s been published and disussed, especially on feminist blogs and sometimes even mainstream media.
look for my post tonight. Prepare to learn more than you want to know about sex slavery rings and human trafficking. When prositution is legal, the demand is higher than the “supply”. Guess how they supply that demand.
This comment was written by pheeno.Report this comment to the moderators
May 5th, 2007 at 7:33 am
Enough of this. The truth is that the proposal is stupid and insulting. To begin with, it’s fatuous to argue that expressive conduct by people who - whatever you say - are adults can be simply stripped of First Amendment protection. (You might as well say, “You can write what you want, but you can’t sell it to TAP until you’re 21.”) If it had been a conservative who had made it, she would have been rightly mocked for her Justice Kennedy-esque parternalistic attitude towards women, as Jon Swift does. It is premised on the notion that young straight women are just fluffy-headed fools when it comes to sex and money. It completely, cluelessly ignores the fact that difficult, low-status jobs such as waiting tables, the military, construction and sex work (a) are the ones at which people with a high school education or less can make a living and (b) they can be pretty degrading and dangerous. (Not to equate them in those regards, just pointing out that being a senior editor at TAP is cushier.) An appalling percentage of women in the Army get sexually assaulted, sometimes after drinking alcohol. They might be more intellectually and emotionally prepared to protect themselves when they’re older. Would it be better if women were forbidden from joining up until they were 21? Or ever? No, because such a proposal is obviously anti-woman and blames the victim. As if Franke-Ruta’s.
This comment was written by Mithras.Report this comment to the moderators
May 5th, 2007 at 8:02 am
Who Hates Women Doing Porn for Money?
Garance Franke-Ruta’s proposal to forbid women (and men, she adds as an afterthought) under 21 from doing softcore or hardcore porn for money has received a respectful hearing. The usual suspects chime in with support. I just can’t take it
This comment was written by Fables of the reconstruction.Report this comment to the moderators
May 5th, 2007 at 8:13 am
I don’t know about the age of consent thing, but I would like to know why in most straight porn that I’ve had the misfortune to gaze on, the overwhelming majority of women never look right. They look rushed, uncomfortable often on the edge of distress perversely always with their hair carefully arranged and perfect make-up. If you compare to gay(male) porn, even when men take what might be seen as a more ‘passive’ position, they have dignity, ‘cos they want it as much as the other guy, they get in position, themselves. They don’t seem to need to pretend that if the other guy so much as breathes on them, it’s just sooo hot! They don’t gurn and pull faces that you know that they’ve been told to pull by a man, to show the unbelievable honour of receiving, well I can hardly say it out loud-whisper( the Holy Member ).You get the feeling that even if the camera wasn’t there, they would be doing the same thing. How many times can you say that about women in straight porn? It is mostly an insult to the intelligence, regardless of the age of the participants.
This comment was written by B.Adu.Report this comment to the moderators
May 5th, 2007 at 8:29 am
Hi, Mithras. It’s obvious that you have strong feelings about this issue. That’s fine, but please try and keep your sneering tone in check, if you can.
Regarding the first amendment issue, I think that’s an excellent point. You may be right that Garance’s proposal would not be constitutional. We’d have to test it in the courts, however; it’s not clear that GGW — or porn in general — always meets the Miller standard for being eligible for first amendment protection. Furthermore, courts might still find that the government has a strong enough legitimate interest in preventing young people from being taken advantage, to justify allowing the first amendment to be somewhat infringed upon.
It’s odd that you assume that Garance’s proposal — which applies to all people under age 21, not just women — is only about women. It’s true that the majority of people under 21 who pose for porn or GGW (which also produces a line of products aimed at gay men, iirc) are women; but I don’t think you should assume that Garance thinks 18-year-old men are fully able to make this decision, and that it’s only young women who might be unprepared.
Wow, is there a lot to be unpacked there.
1) Since Garance isn’t proposing a law that only applies to women, your analogy of a law against women joining the military is a strawman. It’s a common (and anti-feminist) stereotype that feminists favor sexist laws that explicitly protect women while putting men at risk, but that’s virtually never the case in the real world.
2) I suspect that an appalling number of men in the military get sexually assaulted, too, under the guise of hazing. I once read about the tradition in the Navy of “greasing” new recruits, which refers to anal rape with a grease gun.
3) Since you ask, I think the minimum age to join the military, for both women and men, should be raised. Risk of rape aside, people in the military are taking the risk of being killed, and of having to kill other people. It’s reasonable to think 18 is, for a significant percent of people, too young to make a decision like that. By your logic, I guess that means I’m “anti-woman and blame the victim.” I don’t think your logic is very persuasive on this point, however.
[Edited for wording.]
This comment was written by Ampersand.Report this comment to the moderators
May 5th, 2007 at 8:57 am
It also depends on how prostitution is legalized. Sweden, where being a prostitute is legal but hiring a prostitute to have sex is illegal, has been more successful at reducing trafficking than any other country.
This comment was written by Ampersand.Report this comment to the moderators
May 5th, 2007 at 9:22 am
James,
Although there was an apalling recent case in which a couple of 16-year-olds were prosecuted for emailing nude pictures of themselves to each other, in general courts decline to prosecute that sort of case; but they do prosecute if an adult possesses or sells pornography featuring models or actors under age 18. Nor is it legal for an 18-year-old to sell pornographic photos of themselves taken when they were 17.
I presume Garance wants the law to remain much as it is today, except for the age restriction to be changed from 18 to 21.
This comment was written by Ampersand.Report this comment to the moderators
May 5th, 2007 at 9:29 am
Ampersand, To be scrupulously fair, whatever the specifics of Garance’s proposal, I don’t think it can be credibly denied that her motivation was in large part protecting young women from the consequences of poor choices and/or impaired judgement. Expanding this parental concern to young men may answer one objection but it doesn’t speak to the main issue. That is, whether or not we will treat 18-20 year olds of whatever gender as full adults and citizens.
Raising the age for such rights and responsibilities to 21 across the board would resolve this but is impractical for a plethora of reasons. Removal of the right of contract from this demographic alone would have profound economic consequences. As would the extension of parental responsibility for them.
Now I understand that neither Garance nor yourself see this as a necessity in order to achieve the end you have in view. However, I believe you are both mistaken in this. What is being advocated amounts to the creation of a new class of partial citizenship. That is, legal adults whose rights are truncated on no other basis than the fact that they are age 18-20. The ramifications of this are immense for U.S. civil law and governance. If the rights of legal adults can be limited on the basis of age requirements, particularly when it comes to management of their bodies and sexual behavior, a precendent is set for the most profound and ominous impositions of state power.
This comment was written by W.B. Reeves.Report this comment to the moderators
May 5th, 2007 at 9:45 am
W.B.,
How is this different from the age of drinking laws that already exist? (And also, the age at which people can run for political office?) Those restrictions may annoy people, but they don’t seem to have created any dire consequences.
(I’m not stubbornly wedded to my position on this, by the way. I am being convinced by what you and others have said that Garance’s proposal is more problematic than I at first thought.)
Edited to add:
Certainly. But we’re discussing the policy she proposed, not her motivation. And the policy she proposed is gender-neutral.
This comment was written by Ampersand.Report this comment to the moderators
May 5th, 2007 at 10:08 am
Hi Amp-
[I]t’s not clear that GGW — or porn in general — always meets the Miller standard for being eligible for first amendment protection.
All expression is presumptively protected by the Free Speech Clause of the First Amendment. What Miller and its progeny (however incoherent they are) does is establish when that expression crosses some threshold they call obscenity (not a term which appears in the Constitution, btw), which allows prosecutors to criminalize expression. In the past, in addition to going after child porn (about which I think we have common ground), the power to ban obscenity has often been used by local, state and federal governments to punish sexual minorities, such as gay men and people in the BDSM community. Obscenity law should be cabined, not expanded to treat adults as having the same legal and moral agency as children.
It’s a common (and anti-feminist) stereotype that feminists favor sexist laws that explicitly protect women while putting men at risk, but that’s virtually never the case in the real world.
I acknowledge that she says the words “women and men”; what I am arguing is that is a sham. Look at the original article in the WSJ: She singles out the creator of the execrable “Girls Gone Wild” series:
Young girls. Not boys. And later, she asks:
This argument is appealing to the conservatives at the WSJ editorial page because they think the same way about young sluts - oh, excuse me, that’s their term, not mine or Franke-Ruta’s - I mean young women who do not control their sexuality in the approved way. There is a “Boys Gone Wild” series, too, you know. Where’s Franke-Ruta’s discussion of how young men are unready to make decisions that they will have to live with the rest of their lives? Nowhere. Because it’s not germane to her argument. I haven’t erected a strawman; I’m pointing out the truth.
What I am arguing is that anti-porn regulations like the one Franke-Ruta proposes is founded in sexist paternalism, not feminism. It’s proposals like hers that keep alive conservative, anti-feminist arguments like the one you implicitly accuse me of making. There are liberals who are just viscerally offended by the sexual choices others make, and that’s when they join forces with conservatives who share that mindset.
Risk of rape aside, people in the military are taking the risk of being killed, and of having to kill other people. It’s reasonable to think 18 is, for a significant percent of people, too young to make a decision like that.
Interesting. What do you think of 18-year-olds voting?
Also, apart from the inability of young people to pay their bills I mentioned in a prior comment, it seems to me that people who support Franke-Ruta’s idea have not thought through the practical effects. So, young people can’t sell porn in which they appear, but they can give it away? The content will just appear on the web anyway. Also, let’s say two 19-year-old entrepeneurs set up their own porn company, videotape themselves and sell the videos to people who don’t live in the U.S., then what? If I understand the proposal correctly, nothing happens to the two young people, and U.S. jurisdiction wouldn’t usually reach non-U.S. citizens. Of course, the U.S. could join forces with other countries which criminalize such purchases, like Saudi Arabia. That would be lovely.
This comment was written by Mithras.Report this comment to the moderators
May 5th, 2007 at 10:10 am
I want to point out that the empowering example I gave was On Our Backs a lesbian, feminist porn magazine which was highly regarded among her peers. Hustler is an entirely different story (and, in fact, it caused a huge uproar when a male grad student published an anonymous article in the Penthouse Forum about the fetish ball at my undergraduate-women-only college. (If his identity had been discovered, he would have had to transfer, probably)). We’re all smart enough to distinguish between the Worker-owned-coop & unionized Lusty Lady and a more typical strip club, but this law does not. If we’re going to reform the sex industry, why not do it in a way that benefits everybody employed in it? I’d like to see the Lusty Lady become the norm, rather than the exception. I think the sobriety requirement is an excellent one, and I would definitely support it.
As for how different police departments handle rape claims: More than half of prostitutes working in Holland are doing so illegally, according to something I read recently in The Hague times. The authorities were floored when they did their census, which managed to count many illegal sex workers, since they knew they wouldn’t get in trouble for talking to the census takers. So there is a huge a mount of illegal prostitution in addition to legal prostitution.
I don’t have any numbers, but I think that issues about how the police treat prostitutes is probably more related to cultural attitudes, rather than laws. For instance, I suspect that in France, the police would seperate their role of stopping prostitution from their role of catching rapists. I don’t know how the Dutch police deal with this, but it’s worth noting that their cops are the least assholish of any I’ve ever encountered.
This comment was written by Les.Report this comment to the moderators
May 5th, 2007 at 11:36 am
Believe it or not, there is no constitutional “right” to drink intoxicants in the US anymore than there is a “right” to drive. The Government could repeat it’s disasterous experiment in prohibition tomorrow (even as it does presently with the benighted war on drugs) without raising a single constitutional issue. The drinking age law is of a piece with the regulation of cigarettes and prescription drugs as an established part of the regulatory function of government. I don’t approve of all the policies that emanate from this principle but I can’t argue that they are an infringement of constitutional liberties under our jurisprudence. Neither can they be said to establish a second class of citizenship since they are limited to the regulatory function. BTW, the laws in question are the result of a Federal mandate rather than local initiatve.
Further, laws that regulate consumption are of a fundamentally different character than laws that limit freedom of action. Saying that someone may not consume alcohol until age 21 has far different ramifications than saying they aren’t competent to enter into a contract before that age. On what basis could that principle be limited to a single instance?
As for age restrictions for office holders, they are anachronisms that have come down to us as constitutional mandates. I wouldn’t object to seeing them abolished but it would require a constitutional amendment to accomplish this. Again, the ramifications of age requirements for holding office are quite different than those that issue from ruling that 18-20 year olds, as a class, lack the competence to enter into a contract. All the moreso if we specify that such incompetence is particular to matters of sexual expression.
This comment was written by W.B. Reeves.Report this comment to the moderators
May 5th, 2007 at 11:53 am
W.B. Reeves-
Saying that someone may not consume alcohol until age 21 has far different ramifications than saying they aren’t competent to enter into a contract before that age.
I think I agree with the gist of your argument, but just in case you’re trying to make a distinction between the constitutional implications of a law banning purchase of porn and one banning the sale of it: There is no distinction. The right to publish a newspaper and the right to purchase one are the same right - the right to free speech necessarily includes both the right to express yourself and the right to read/view/hear expression. Similarly, the right to make an erotic video of yourself and sell it necessarily implies others have the right to buy it. If this weren’t the case, it would be a simple matter for the government to ban speech on the publication/purchase end.
This comment was written by Mithras.Report this comment to the moderators
May 5th, 2007 at 12:21 pm
A point worth making Mithras and that’s no bull. It never occured to to me draw the parallel since imbibing isn’t speech. Thanks for insuring that no false construction could be placed on my argument.
This comment was written by W.B. Reeves.Report this comment to the moderators
May 5th, 2007 at 1:03 pm
W.B. Reeves-
… and that’s no bull.
LOL
This comment was written by Mithras.Report this comment to the moderators
May 5th, 2007 at 1:15 pm
She gives hints in this direction in the column. But changes her mind on the blog. I don’t think the quote above is correct, because of this:
Garance seems to me to be trying very hard to do something other than treat photos of 20 year olds the same way we currently treat photos of 17 year olds. That’s why she goes for distribution without consent, rather than possession or making images. She’s not trying to lock up people who currently possess images of 18 year olds. Or to make making these images illegal. She’s just going for commercial distribution, which is very different to raising the age limit on thecurrent situation and I think would leave a loophole.
This comment was written by james.Report this comment to the moderators
May 5th, 2007 at 2:32 pm
Mithras:
“Renagade Evolution (comment #8) does sex work for a living, and I assume she pays rent, yet she isn’t opposed to this proposal.
Did she do it when she under 21?”
I started dancing at 19, college tutition and all. Anything else, after 21.
Yet I still think the age of 21 for porn, more specifically hardcore porn for both female and male performers, is not a bad idea. Same for joining the military, actually. And the idea of soberity checks is also a good one…you have them for plenty of other jobs, why not porn?
This comment was written by RenegadeEvolution.Report this comment to the moderators
May 5th, 2007 at 2:46 pm
I don’t know how many of the commenters here are parents of older teens.
My son is almost 20, and his girlfriend is 18. Neither of them are “adults” in the traditional sense of the word. They are smart, generally sensible young people whose day to day decisions contain considerably more “stupid” and “regrettable” decisions than will be the case when they are 25.
Maturity does not descend on your 18th birthday, or your 21st, and you’ll make a lot of mistakes along the way. That’s as it should be…judgement is a gradually developed thing. As a parent, I’d like to protect my young adult from making bad decisions which will have long term impact on his life.
We don’t let 18 year olds drink legally anymore because we found they made stupid decisions, and too many of them died as a result. While not a lot of 18 year old girls are going to die as a result of participating in pornography, what sounds like a lark at 18 can come back to haunt them at 30, when their earlier participation in porn makes a career in politics, or teaching, etc. nearly impossible.
I don’t know quite what I think about raising the age for porn participation to 21. The feminist in me balks at the paternalism….the parent in me thinks it’s probably an idea with a great deal of merit.
This comment was written by Broce.Report this comment to the moderators
May 5th, 2007 at 2:59 pm
Neither of those restrictions are based in law; they’re policies set by hotels and rental agencies, and they’re not even universal policies. I had no problem getting a hotel room before I turned 21, and some agencies will rent a car to drivers under 25 for an additional fee.
This comment was written by Jesse.Report this comment to the moderators
May 5th, 2007 at 3:07 pm
Broce, what do you think about raising the age for signing contracts (loans, credit cards, etc.) to 21? Or the age to sign up for the military? Surely the consequences of those might haunt an 18 year old for just as long as appearing in porn.
BTW, the drinking age was raised to 21 largely as a result of pressure from activists who failed to realize how much worse it would make college binge drinking. The goal was to reduce drunk driving, but they may not even deserve credit for that, since drunk driving accidents fell at the same time in Canada, where the age stayed the same.
This comment was written by Jesse.Report this comment to the moderators
May 5th, 2007 at 9:16 pm
I would agree with changing the age of contracts including military enlistment.
This comment was written by Broce.Report this comment to the moderators
May 5th, 2007 at 9:38 pm
How will you explain that to all the parents whose children can’t move out for an extra 3 years because they can’t lease an apartment, buy a home or even a car, or sign up for any utility service?
This comment was written by Jesse.Report this comment to the moderators
May 5th, 2007 at 9:43 pm
OT’ish: If the idea is to keep young adults from making bad decisions that will come back and bite them in the butt later on in life, shouldn’t the age for being able to marry be raised to 21 as well?
More on topic: Who decides what is porn with the age limit thing? Does a young/underage actor in a main stream film with a sex scene count and would they be barred from making a movie that might make their career?
This comment was written by mousehounde.Report this comment to the moderators
May 5th, 2007 at 11:11 pm
I’m not worried about their impact on the housing market. I’m worried about their rights and agency over their own lives, and a little scared that so many here don’t even hesitate to suggest stripping them away.
This comment was written by Jesse.Report this comment to the moderators
May 6th, 2007 at 3:47 am
Some general comments:
1) I don’t think it’s legally or ethically impossible to say that a 20 year old has a right to sign contracts and have a job, but not a right to join the army. Or to pose or act in commercial porn. I don’t think the extremist, all-or-nothing view some folks here are arguing for is actually necessary.
2) Mousehounde, our current child porn laws have not led to The Little Drummer Boy being eliminated from our culture, nor have they prevented Romeo and Juliet. Works of art that can pass the Miller Standard would, under any proposal I’d be willing to support, be protected. As far as I can tell, despite all the criticisms from First Amendment absolutists, the Miller Standard has for the last couple of decades had the kinks worked out of it pretty well, and is capable of successfully distinguishing between art and porn.
3) A lot of folks here are ignoring one part of Garance’s argument. This is not just about individual rights; it’s about our entire culture. Do we prefer to live in a culture in which Girls Gone Wild and “barely legal” porn is an accepted norm? I don’t. I think eroticism is great, and commercial porn can be fine too. But it’s not ridiculous to want a culture in which teenagers are expected to have erotic lives, but not to be used for commercialized faux-sex.
4) Jesse, I think a lot of people actually lose some agency over their own lives when they go into sex work, and that this is more likely to be a problem for young workers. I certainly think people lose tons of agency when they join the armed forces. I agree that you’re raising a legitimate concern, but I wish you could see that there’s more than one way to lose agency; and that some people will end up getting burned by the policy you favor, too.
This comment was written by Ampersand.Report this comment to the moderators
May 6th, 2007 at 4:30 am
It’s not ridiculous, but I don’t see enough appeal in that culture to justify either the loss of freedom, or the symbolic insult of yet another law telling young adults that the state knows their own interests better than they do.
I think GGW is crass and probably unethically exploitative, but I’m not really bothered by the genre as a whole. “Barely legal” doesn’t seem any more distasteful than “MILF” or any other category of porn.
This comment was written by Jesse.Report this comment to the moderators
May 6th, 2007 at 6:31 am
bean-
So, you want to speak your misogynistic liberal views, great, fine, go ahead. But don’t pretend that they have anything to do with feminism, or that you would even know what feminism is if you saw it.
Let me break it down the way I see it. Franke-Ruta sees women making choices that she says cause them distress later. Her proposed solution is to forbid those women from making those choices. Justice Anthony Kennedy, in the Carhart v. Gonzales decisions, sees women making choices that he says cause them distress later. His solution is to forbid those women from making those choices. In both cases, the rationale is based on the idea that women can’t inform themselves of the risks and benefits of the decision, that others (pornographers or doctors) will mislead them about those risks and benefits, so the women’s consent is not truly informed, so legislatures are right to step in and substitute their judgment for that of the women.
In the abortion context, assuming for the moment that the informed consent criticism were actually valid (when in fact it’s a sham), the correct answer would have been legislation requiring proper disclosure. In the porn context, assuming for the moment that the age-impaired-judgment criticism were actually valid (when in fact it’s a sham), the correct answer would have been legislation requiring proper disclosure.
To claim that taking legal rights away from women in the name of protecting them is feminist, and that anyone who wants them to keep their full legal rights is misogynist, turns reality on its head.
This comment was written by Mithras.Report this comment to the moderators
May 6th, 2007 at 6:37 am
bean-
Just to complete my thesis, what I think is going on here is that Franke-Ruta and others are actually trying to address the heteronormative aspects of porn, and restrict the consent of women to make money from porn as an instrument to address the larger societal problem. I think this is clear from Amp’s comment:
In other words, common good before individual good. It’s not about some spurious negative effect on the women, it’s about the environment for all women that women who appear in porn contribute to.
In my view, it is simply unacceptable - morally and legally - to sacrifice the fundamental speech rights of a few in order to achieve some larger societal goal. If you don’t like the expression you see in the porn that those women choose to make and sell, then the answer is more and better speech, not to restrict the expression of those you disagree with.
This comment was written by Mithras.Report this comment to the moderators
May 6th, 2007 at 6:55 am
RenegadeEvolution-
I started dancing at 19, college tutition and all.
I assume you got paid for it. If you had danced on video, should you have been legally disabled from getting paid for that? What’s the distinction between dancing for a live audience for money and dancing on video for money that gives one a legal entitlement over the other?
This comment was written by Mithras.Report this comment to the moderators
May 6th, 2007 at 8:20 am
A practical question: how much does a young woman add to her indirect risks by appearing in porn?
Maybe it’s just my deficient people-recognizing skills, but porn seems to mostly consist of a lot of vaguely similar-looking people. What are the odds that a woman will actually get recognized later?
This comment was written by Nancy Lebovitz.Report this comment to the moderators
May 6th, 2007 at 8:22 am
Mithras:
If people work, no matter where and what it is, I think they should get paid. The 21 thing? I think that is not a bad idea specifically for hardcore porn. Hardcore porn is, no matter what anyone says, different than nude modeling or stripping.
GGW is a whole different thing in my opinion, my main objection to it as a whole is that laws (underage drinking) are specifically violated in it’s production, the performers are often too drunk to give informed consent, and really, are not “paid” at all.
This comment was written by RenegadeEvolution.Report this comment to the moderators
May 6th, 2007 at 8:34 am
prostitution and human trafficking link
http://www.state.gov/r/pa/ei/rls/38790.htm
drug use link to come
This comment was written by pheeno.Report this comment to the moderators
May 6th, 2007 at 8:59 am
Unlike Jesse, I think this is an important goal.
I know quite a few 18-20 year olds. And they really aren’t black & white adults, or not adults. They’re in a gray area. Some of them are adults all the time. Some of them are adults some of the time. Some of them are so far from being adults that it’s laughable.
I think one of the problems is that college can be a liminal phase. I suspect that many 18-20 year olds who support themselves out of high school are much more mature than the ones who continue to be supported, in whole or significant part, by their parents (not because of any inherent moral weakness or anything; I think it can just create a situation where there’s a prolonged adolescence). I don’t know what overall percentage of the 18-20 population the latter category is.
However, I think I agree with the people who call this more of a bandaid than a viable solution. I think I agree with some of the people at Pandagon who suggest more rigorous enforcement of consent laws, an enforced ban against holding sex workers to contracts they signed while intoxicated or otherwise impaired, and some kind of enforced minimum payment — although I would think the latter would have to be carefully worded.
This comment was written by Mandolin.Report this comment to the moderators
May 6th, 2007 at 9:23 am
By the by, Mitrhas, I’m fairly certain that Garance is female.
I’m not sure what it is about that particular misgendering that bugged me so, but it did.
This comment was written by Mandolin.Report this comment to the moderators
May 6th, 2007 at 9:39 am
RenegadeEvolution-
Hardcore porn is, no matter what anyone says, different than nude modeling or stripping.
Franke-Ruta’s proposal would apply to all of it. But if we accept limiting the 21 year old restriction to hardcore porn, then you get into defintional problems of what makes porn hardcore. And, needless to say, porn is protected speech under the First Amendment, and all of these ideas are illegal.
… the performers are often too drunk to give informed consent, and really, are not “paid” at all.
I see what you’re saying here. I would be in favor of regulations designed to make the consent actual, by ensuring the person was not intoxicated when they signed.
Mandolin-
By the by, Mitrhas, I’m fairly certain that Garance is female.
Me, too. Where did I refer to her as male?
This comment was written by Mithras.Report this comment to the moderators
May 6th, 2007 at 9:49 am
*flips back up*
Nowhere, you were talking about Justice Kennedy.
I need to read more slowly and get glasses. Sigh.
This comment was written by Mandolin.Report this comment to the moderators
May 6th, 2007 at 1:57 pm
I suppose this is why it’s much better to actually read about and/or listen to the women who do claim to have been effected by this (particularly when it comes to things like GGW). Or, maybe you have heard their stories, you just don’t believe them.
This is exactly parallel to anti-choice rhetoric about women being harmed by abortion.
This comment was written by Mithras.Report this comment to the moderators
May 6th, 2007 at 2:36 pm
The entire pro-choice analogy is so beyond ridiculous that I didn’t even bother to address. Nor will I.
You simply have no answer. It’s telling that you refused to engage with Jesse’s arguments, but just flung names at him, as you did me.
This comment was written by Mithras.Report this comment to the moderators
May 6th, 2007 at 2:47 pm
You’re every bit as contemptuous of women who make sexual choices you disapprove of as any rightwinger.
This discussion is going nowhere. You get the last word.
This comment was written by Mithras.Report this comment to the moderators