Garance 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.)
Reeves, I suspect most of what you said about Twisty contradicts the facts. And in fairness, I doubt any of those societies managed to get rid of porn entirely. See however here.
Pingback: Feminist" ideas that do a disservice to everyone « Notes from Evil Bender
I’ll briefly chime in just to say I largely agree with Jesse’s argument on this topic.
And I have to wonder what the real agenda is when it comes to raising the porn AOC to 21. Is it really for the health of 18–21 year-olds, or is it because some people happen to be uncomfortable with the idea of “barely legal” porn? The latter, IMO, is a piss-poor reason for such regulations, and thankfully wouldn’t even begin to pass First Amendment challenges in the US (and it is US porn regulations you’ve all been discussing here, before you throw down the glove at me for being US-centric). It also seems to be based on the bogus notion that attraction to post-pubescent teenagers is “pedophilia”. How much of the adult population are “pedophiles” by that definition? 95% or more, probably, at least in the case of men.
I also can’t help but notice the heavy use of the passive verb “sexualized”. As if teenagers were non-sexual and lived in a state of beautiful chastity before evol raunch culture fed them the apple. Unlike a lot of people here, it seems, I can still remember being a teenager and I remember how condescending I found the kind of discussions of teen sexuality that I’m seeing here. I still have that perspective, even now that I’m “older and wiser”.
Overall, I agree with the European approach to age of consent – somewhere between 14 to 16 years as a general AOC, but 18 for porn. Also, greater allowance of social freedom and public participation by teenagers like they do in Europe, rather than the kind of cloistering trend we’ve seen in the US over the last 15 years.
As for banning under-21 porn based on the actions of Joe Francis – I’m not buying that, either. The problem with Joe Francis was his MO – getting women drunk, separating them from their friends, ambushing them with demands to show off their bodies. He’s done this to women over 21 as well, and I don’t think age limits really address the core problem with the GGW method of operating. Strengthening laws under which model release forms can be considered valid, putting “cooling off” periods into the language of the contract, etc are clearly better solutions that get at the problem directly.
I’m not going to get into the porn debate, especially since the commenter I’m addressing hasn’t even grasped the basics of Feminism 101 and I am a declared Radical Feminist. I am a bit appalled that no one here (unless I missed it) seems to know that there is indeed a difference between a “child molester” and “pedophile”. Pedophiles do only target pre-pubescent children. They have no attraction to pubescent or adult women. There -are- men who molest children -and- have sexual relations with adult women. A very significant portion of child sexual abuse survivors were molested by their fathers or other sexual partners of their mother. There are men who target single mothers for the sole factor of gaining access to their children, but they are indeed attracted to both.
http://www.crisisconnectioninc.org/sexualassault/pedophilia_and_child_sexual_mole.htm
“True Pedophiles are responsible for only a small percentage of child sexual molestations. Half of child sexual abusers are the parents of the victims; other relatives commit an additional 18% of the offenses.
All Pedophiles are child molesters, but very few child molesters are Pedophiles. Pedophilia is a distinct sexual orientation that involves exclusive attraction to prepubescent children (male or female, generally not both). Child sexual molesters may be sexually attracted to males and/or females and are generally not particular about their age; convenience and easy access are their prime concerns.
Active Pedophiles are generally single men between the ages of 16 and 35. Child molesters are generally married men, of any age, who are primarily drawn to their own children and step-children.
Pedophiles primarily engage in fondling and oral-genital sex; they “court” and “groom” their victims as if engaged in a consensual relationship with an adult. Child molesters will fondle and engage in oral-genital sex, but also frequently sexually penetrate their victims, force children to watch while the molester abuses their mother or others and partake of pornography with children in the immediate vicinity.”
You might also wish to check out this link:
http://brokendreams.wordpress.com/tag/child-abuse/page/2/
But women who choose to work in the sex industry (especially those who feel empowerful by such a thing) do, I think, own a part of the responsibility of pornification of this society.
“Empowerful”? Is that even a fucking word? It seems to be one of those air-quote words used to sneer at sex workers who aren’t sufficiently very, very sorry for their anti-feminist betrayal. Kind of the way antifeminists talk about “career” women or “inconvenient” pregnancies.
Come to think of it, it’s also the antifeminists who use terms like “pornification”.
Do they get that idea confirmed or rejected by picking up a Playboy?
Do men get that idea confirmed or rejected when they see a woman go out in a revealing sundress? After all, she’s putting on a sexual display. If that’s all it takes to say “Boys, take it from me, we’re the sex class,” you’re casting a rather wide net of blame there.
On gay porn, the “gay bottoms are like women” crap sounds an awful lot like those homophobes who ask which person in a homosexual couple plays the man.
Ask the sex poz crowd. Its the word they came up with for women who choose to work in the sex industry, in order to deny it being degrading.
Are those women being PAID? No? Hmmm. Perhaps theres a difference you’re not grasping between walking out in public wearing clothes and being paid to promote your body as a commodity or tool to sell clothes. (walking hamgers is the phrase used by those in the fashion industry, to describe women) If you can sell your body as a product or sex as a service, then rape can be seen as little more than shoplifting or theft of service.
Ask the author. I doubt she’s homophobic though, unless she’s phobic of herself.
Indeed
What a shame this thread has turned into another rerun of the sex wars. I think even mentioning Twisty jinxed it.
Pheeno, Bean, I hear you. It’s frustrating to be quibbling over whether 18-21 year olds should get the same nominal and inadequate protection from abuse that is currently afforded to 14-18 year olds. And tacitly assuming that only a prude or a hater of “free speech” could object to the trafficking and rape of women over 21. I can see why you are upset.
Mythago, RenEv, thanks for flying the feminist pornographers’ flag. You’re being boxed in with a false dichotomy between poor little victims who were forced into the evil industry and must be saved from their own false consciousness, and exploiters who are perpetuating that evil industry. It would be a lot easier just to stay out of such an arena, and I for one am glad to hear something of your perspective rather than others’ assumptions about your lives and experiences.
As for GGW, I think it ought to be covered by existing laws. It’s illegal to ply underage people with alcohol and illegal to extract consent for either sex or a legal contract from someone who isn’t fully competent. The best solution IMO would be actually enforcing those laws, in spite of the fact that Francis is famous and the show makes lots of money for TV networks.
hf Writes:
May 8th, 2007 at 4:12 pm
“Reeves, I suspect most of what you said about Twisty contradicts the facts. And in fairness, I doubt any of those societies managed to get rid of porn entirely. See however here.”
I certainly may have gotten it wrong. Anyone who cares to investigate may follow the links provided by Mandolin:
blog.iblamethepatriarchy.com/2007/04/28/reader, blog.iblamethepatriarchy.com/2007/05/07/the-se,
and judge for themselves whether or not my impressions are “factual”.
They might then point out exactly where I “contradict” a fact, let alone “the facts”. In fact, you might have done so yourself. You might still, if you took a notion to try. At least then you could speak from knowlege rather than mere “suspicion”.
Let’s be clear about one thing though. I wrote nothing whatever about Twisty, who I do not know from Adam’s house cat. I gave my impressions of some of the ideas she expressed in exactly two posts. This necessarily involved expressing speculative opinions about those ideas. If you can point out where such opinions are “counter-factual” I would be very interested.
Since we’re all being so “fair” here, I think it only fair to point out that whether or not porn has been completely expunged from a particular society is irrelevant. The argument has been made that pornography plays a central role in the objectification and subordination of women in society. If this is so, one would expect to find a correlative relation between the availablility of porn in a particular society and the relative status and condition of women in that society.
The issues are straight forward. What has been the status of women in society’s typified by the suppression of pornography historically ? Has the emergence of pornography in our society been accompanied by a degradation of women’s status? How does the contemporary status of women compare to that of women during the period when pornography was suppressed by law? Do the answers to these questions support the theoretical constructs of Twisty and others, or do they not?
It is not all clear what pertinence your link to the piece on “My Secret Life” has. Perhaps you could explain its significance?
Finally, I’d say that despite its brevity, your comment is a perfect distillation of the short comings of a theory driven approach. Heavy on assertion and prejudice, barren of any sense of the need for evidence or proofs of any kind.
I’ll close with this thought. We all exist within social and cultural systems but each of us is more than simply the sum of systemic influences. Each of us deserves to be judge as an individual rather than the expression of a categorical imperative.
Ask the sex poz crowd. Its the word they came up with for women who choose to work in the sex industry, in order to deny it being degrading.
Just to say, “empowerful” was coined by Twisty in reference to the “sports corset” thing. Linky.
ha! I just thought it was a misspelling of empowerment.
I doubt that Mythago actually meant that by her statement; I suspect that either she meant that she’s seen anti-feminists use the word “pornification,” or she used the wrong word.
I daresay that no person you apparently are calling “anti-feminists” (I’m not sure who in this debate you refer to, possibly the “pro-porn” people) use the term “empowerful” as seriously applying to them. It’s nearly universally applied as a pejorative term.
Ah, I understand now, never mind.
I was mistaken, pay no attention to the man behind the curtain.
we ask this sort of thing too little about other fields of work.
Myca @ 156: Bingo.
The big open-ended question in here is, how does industry exploit the emotional expectations of those who have been emotionally abused?
If you’ve been brought up to think that you’re a poor (memberofgender) if you don’t work yourself into an early grave, are you equipped to set boundaries for yourself in a job that wants you to do just that?
An industry with a very innocuous reputation harmed me very badly, because I was never taught to be on my guard against it. Another with a less savory reputation left me with a positive experience, because I had learned to be on my guard and set my own boundaries. I found it interesting that in the sex industry the fact that I was only willing to work on my own terms, though the specific limits I set made it hard for my income to be high, was not a deal-breaker, whereas in the nine-to-five world when I explain — cautiously, and with an eye to compromise — that I don’t want my job to make me ill, and need a full eight hours of sleep nightly which I can’t get if waking too early in the morning, they look at me like I’m utterly useless and refuse to hire me.
(Bitter-who-meeee?)
I think my good experience with the sex industry was due to a number of causes (upbringing, area, pre-existing standards) and that the basic feminist criticism of the sex industry probably helped me out before I ever doffed me duds. I’m quite thankful for that.
At the same time, I really, really wish that those of us who have the drive to be politically active would turn, in numbers, to improving working conditions across the board, rather than occasionally remarking on it in amongst huge anti-porn foo-fa-rahs. I understand the white-collar enemy is more entrenched, and daunting, and he’s everyone’s boss. It’s far, far easier to pick on the sex industry — workers, exploiters, and allies alike. Smaller target, less friends. And yet — I could have a liveable job again, if only I were willing to keep my gender card in order. (I decided after a long time that I’m not.)
Hehe, did I get ranty? I think I got ranty. Anyone in Portland hiring part-time?
The problem is not that 18 year old girls do porn, it’s that many people (including many commenters on this site) stigmatize them for it. The solution, then, is not to raise the age of consent for doing porn, but rather to lower the stigma.
Come on, prudes: get over your revulsion–for the sake of the girls, if not for yourselves. Because it’s people like you who validate the notion that having done porn is somehow a shameful, stupid thing. And that is what damages the girls.
“Come on, prudes: get over your revulsion–for the sake of the girls, if not for yourselves. Because it’s people like you who validate the notion that having done porn is somehow a shameful, stupid thing. And that is what damages the girls.”
Bonus points: feminists are prudes, and a plea to respect the choices of 18 year olds while calling them girls. I call troll, and boring.
Seems a little ironic to object to calling 18 year old women “girls” when the original proposal is based on the idea that that’s exactly what they are.
There’s no hypocrisy in a plea to respect the choices of girls (or boys) anyway: even children are capable of making choices for themselves. The real hypocrisy is asking for 18-21 year old women to be treated like children without admitting that’s how you see them.
I never actually supported the proposal, so your remark is fatuous. My first comment in the thread, 73, is saying that I don’t think it would work.
Also, whatever I think, when someone comes in to plug their rights as adults, and calls them girls, he’s being a hypocrite. My particular perspective is irrelevant; it’s inconsistent for dude to come in with the premise they’re adults and then minimize them by calling them girls — inconsistent with his position that is, but consistent with misogyny.
I don’t see any evidence in #217 that he’s coming in with the premise that 18 year olds are adults. Perhaps he shares the opinion of others here that they aren’t, but still wants their choices to be respected. (Nor do I see any evidence that by “prudes” he was referring to all feminists, either.)
Again, you’re reading something into the comment that just isn’t there. He starts out by referring to 18 year old girls and remains consistent to that. There is no mention of “rights as adults”, only of “rights”.
Comments here can be edited up to 30 minutes after posting. If you want to react to the change I made, go for it.
Done.
Okay, so I see two possibilities:
1) What I interpreted. It’s not uncommon to refer to women as girls, even women in their thirties or older. It’s something that people have blogged about a lot, and while its effect is diminishing I think (both because people have started to knock it off, and also because there’s more of a tendency to refer to men as boys), it’s still present and goes well with the kind of patriarchal myth-making that’s tapped into by the slam about calling people who are anti-porn prudes, as if being anti-porn means being anti-sex.
2) What you interpreted. This guy is defending the rights of people who he thinks are actually children to act in porn. I expect this isn’t the case, though if he wants to come back into the thread and talk about how fourrteen-year-olds should totally doff it for cash, then I’ll stand corrected. But if it is the case – I think this condemns his position much more than my interpretation. I think many fourteen-year-olds are sexual and capable of meaningful consent — with other fourteen-year-olds. As Amanda at Pandagon says, young people should be able to explore their own sexuality without skeezy dudes leering at the boundaries to make sex objects of them.
The young women in question are 18, not 14. You yourself said that people around that age are in some gray area between child and adult — which I disagree with, but it seems to be a popular enough view. I think you’re still ignoring the possibility that he thinks about 18-21 year olds exactly the same way you do, and uses the word “girls” to refer to women who are not “really” adults.
Given the context of the comment, and the other kinds of dog whistles in it, I stand by my critique.
If there’s more to be said on the original topic of the post, I’ll be happy to participate again, but this feels like a derail now, so I’m out.
Raising the age of consent would certainly help (in the UK that age is anyway 16 – don’t tell Joe Francis). I had another idea though – a cooling-off period. In the UK if someone comes to your door and sells you a new electricity contract and you sign something, you have 14 days to change your mind – no fees, no hassle. Is appearing in pornography a less important decision than changing your electricity provider? And is someone stood on their own front doorstep sober in any worse position to make decisions than someone drunk in a nightclub? I have posted a longer version of this proposal here.
I like your idea, Cruella, in that it solves the whole ‘Girls Gone Wild’ issue by granting more power to young women, not taking it away. Also, it seems less prone to abuse than the original proposition.
I would favor a law like that. It would make commercial porn production much more difficult.
I agree, Cruella’s proposal is much better. It addresses the specific problem of people agreeing to do porn while they’re intoxicated or under pressure, without discriminating against anyone.
If only all us smart people could create laws against other people doing stupid things. Yeah, that would be so awesome.
Also: Laws that let anyone change their mind about anything involving any risk, to avoid any negative consequences. Yeah, let’s do that, too.
Long time thread, but I’ll say a few things, I’m halfway through the thread, didn’t see it before I think.
@Jesse
I have a cousin of a cousin who is male and named Jessie. French-Canadian, but well, maybe names differ for that reason? I couldn’t say, but there you go: a male Jessie.
@Mandolin (comment #94, though apparently, some comments vanished since the thread’s original, so numbering changed as well, its the current number as of today)
“Young women are frequent targets of sexual assault. When we condemn people like pedophiles, we need to take into account that we highly sexualize young children. We, as a culture, are creating the conditions that create pedophiliac response, whether the people who engage in that sexual fantasy are paraphiliacs (can only be aroused by their fetish) or men who have both normal and abnormal sexual response.”
I’d point to wikipedia’s article on lolicon, which says:
“Some critics claim that the lolicon genre contributes to actual sexual abuse of children,[7][8] while others claim that there is no evidence for this,[9][8] or that there is evidence to the contrary.
…
An argument is that obscene fictional images portray children as sex objects, thereby contributing to child sexual abuse. This argument has been disputed by the claim that there is no scientific basis for that connection,[32] and that restricting sexual expression in drawings or animated games and videos might actually increase the rate of sexual crime by eliminating a harmless outlet for desires that could motivate crime.[9] This is exemplified in a case involving a man, from Virginia who, while arrested after viewing lolicon at a public library, asserted that he had quit collecting real child pornography and switched to lolicon.
…
Milton Diamond and Ayako Uchiyama observe a strong correlation between the dramatic rise of pornographic material in Japan from the 1970s onwards and a dramatic decrease in reported sexual violence, including crimes by juveniles and assaults on children under 13. They cite similar findings in Denmark and West Germany. In their summary, they state that the concern that countries with widespread availability of sexually explicit material would suffer increased rates of sexual crimes was not validated; and that the reduction of sexual crimes in Japan during that period may have been influenced by a variety of factors they had described in their study.[10]”
—————-
By this reasoning, there’s yet to be a scientifically proven reason for this to happen. If mangas featuring teenage girls who half look like children (but still with puberty-induced features) don’t increase pedophilia, I don’t think 18 years old who look like 16 would, either.
I think Britney Spears and others like her are more responsible for the self-sexualization (by advertising proxy) of children (and especially girls), who view them as idols. I may be mistaken, but I don’t think children typically idolize porn stars, however young they might look, because they’re not typically public.
I was surprised myself to read on this from Japan, a truly patriarchal society which makes the US and Canada look like nothing. Where a man saying “I love you” to his wife of 20 years, is seen as too hard to do and unmanly if done.
As for comment #1, saying its hard to find women who look significantly younger (21 looking like 18 or 16). I’m 26 and am often seen as underaged. My first day of work where I work now (I was a few weeks short of 26), I was asked if I was going to summer camp (and not as a monitor). The guy was surprised when I said I was going to work.
I’m often taken for between 16 and 19. No one can honestly give me above 20 years old based on appearance alone. Wether my genetic makeup is responsible wholly or partially for this, I have no idea. While I like looking younger, I don’t do much of anything towards highlighting it though.
Note: I don’t *typically* wear lolita fashion (pretty rarely actually), but it’s clear as day to people that I don’t look pre-pubescent, even in such clothing.
I disagree with this proposal for a few simple reasons.
1.) The line between commercial enterprise and personal life is blurring in some cases. Under this law it would prevent a person over the age of 21 from choosing to sell images of themselves from when they were 18 at which point no one is protected.
2.) Laws intended to protect a population from immorality – a moral based law – almost always harm the very people it is intended to protect. One could actually write a book with examples of this and still not cover them all. In a current example it is against the law to take or possess any photos of someone under the age of 18. As a result, children who take nude photos of themselves are placed on the sex offender registry and other children who were sent these pictures – sometimes without even asking for them – are also placed on the registry. Clearly laws are needed to protect children from exploitation, but where exploitation is not occurring it’s something of an outrage that children are treated as criminals. One has to wonder if this proposed law would count as a sex crime. Would someone who sells the pictures of an 18 year old be qualified for the sex offender registry having broken a sex related law? If so, would a person who sells their own pictures as an adult go on the registry?
3.) This proposed law is gender biased. While men are not exploited nearly as often, could it not be argued that if women are deserving protection a man might also wish to be protected?
4.) Every time I hear about someone trying to change some form of the age of consent it is due to a weird feminist ideal that women are not capable of making rational choices at a younger age. Initially the age of consent around the world was between 10 and 12. This was in place because initially education was not of concern for women or men. Today it makes sense to increase the age of consent in today’s age due to the demands of education, but some people have taken it too far. The simple fact is that our bodies are biologically driven towards sexual activity at that age which is why in many parts of the world – including states within the united states – the age of sexual consent is as low as 14 and as high as 17. Originally the feminist movement wanted the age of sexual consent to be 21 back when the right to vote began at 21 so this law appears to be proposed as part of that initial view. If the right to perform in porn increases from 18 to 21 it will be much easier to increase the ability to have sex at all from 18 to 21. The age of sexual consent has been gradually increased so much all around the world for 100 years and is still happening. In Canada the age of consent for marriage and sex used to be age 12, and just a few years ago it increased.
5.) The bigger question becomes this: Where will it stop? The justification for raising the age of consent can be used at any time for any age. It is just as correct to say that a 24 year old is more capable of making rational choices than a 21 year old as it is to say that a 21 year old is more capable than an 18 year old. That was the primary logic used to increase the age of consent every time and will continue to be valid well into one aged in their 30’s.
*.) I firmly believe in protecting a person from exploitation, but shouldn’t we focus on exploitation occurring in all ages instead of a specific age? Couldn’t we instead pass a law that requires companies to hold onto the pornographic images for 30 days of a first time porn star before release and allow that individual to change their mind at any time within those 30 days? Similar to how with a mortgage you can change your mind within 30 days. With laws like that it would protect the 18 year old and 28 year old alike from this kind of exploitation without preventing the 18 year old from performing. Because it can cost allot of money to produce a film it could include provisions preventing retaliation against the person, but would not protect after the first time someone appears under the premise that such impulse choices are less likely for a regular and it would open a company to too much financial liability. It still would not protect an 18 year old from all possible kinds of exploitation, but would protect more people from most.