[Annoying-Mouse]

So many countries do this. Is it some sort of international agreement that they all have with each other? Wouldn't it also make sense then that they raise age of consent to 18? I think they should. It seems pretty weird to have Spain whose age of consent is 13, Germany it's 14, France 15, UK 16, Ireland/Cyprus 17 and Malta 18.

[JLXP]

Enlist in the army at 16, can't play CoD until 18.

[anarchism101]

Because most porn is made in the US where some states have 18 as the age of consent?

Just a guess, I'm not saying that's why.

[Clip]

(Original post by JLXP)
Enlist in the army at 16, can't play CoD until 18.

A soldier cannot be deployed until 18.A 16 year old joining the Army would be a junior and go to a different training centre to everyone else for about a year.


On the age of consent thing - leaving aside the whole issue of abuse of position or control - I'm not sure that a 16 year old could sign a contract with the producer of a porn film - or any other film for that matter. Some jurisdictions also have Romeo & Juliet laws where young people can only legally consent to sex with people close to their own age.

[Psyk]

I kind of understand the reason. I think it's to stop 16 and 17 year olds being taken advantage of. There's sort of a grace period where you're allowed to have sex, but they're protected from people exploiting them for money.

But I also think the potential punishments for possessing naked pictures of 16 and 17 year olds are unfair. I think it would still count as child porn even though you could legally have sex with them. Potentially an 18 year old could get put on the sex offenders register for having a naked picture of their 17 year old partner. Maybe that punishment is understandable if it's say a 30 year old tricking young women into exposing themselves on a webcam, but clearly the circumstances should be taken into account.

[Annoying-Mouse]

(Original post by Psyk)
I kind of understand the reason. I think it's to stop 16 and 17 year olds being taken advantage of. There's sort of a grace period where you're allowed to have sex, but they're protected from people exploiting them for money.

16 year olds in this country, as far as I know, are allowed to have sex with anyone of any age (except someone in a position of trust e.g. teacher or care-worker). They're also allowed to film movies and be actors. What's the big difference between signing a contract for a non-pornography film and signing a contract for a pornography film? Both are trying to get value for their money. I don't see how a 16 year old would be any more exploited than a just-turned 18-year old.

(Original post by Clip)
On the age of consent thing - leaving aside the whole issue of abuse of position or control - I'm not sure that a 16 year old could sign a contract with the producer of a porn film - or any other film for that matter. Some jurisdictions also have Romeo & Juliet laws where young people can only legally consent to sex with people close to their own age.

Don't 16 year olds already have such a power to sign employment contracts? What's the big difference? The same rules that apply to a normal employment contract when dealing with 16 year olds e.g. voidable can still apply here.

[Mr Dangermouse]

Because David Cameron is a knobjockey?

[moonkatt]

(Original post by JLXP)
Enlist in the army at 16, can't play CoD until 18.

get noob tubed by a kid aged 7

[Patriot Rich]

The only reason I can think of is that it's to respect the laws of other countries. They don't want large quantities of what is essentially 'child porn' according to their law, easily accessible.

[Annoying-Mouse]

(Original post by Mr Dangermouse)
Because David Cameron is a knobjockey?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sexual_Offences_Act_2003 - Who was responsible for this act? Because that act is the one that changed the law.

[Clip]

(Original post by Annoying-Mouse)
16 year olds in this country, as far as I know, are allowed to have sex with anyone of any age (except someone in a position of trust e.g. teacher or care-worker). They're also allowed to film movies and be actors. What's the big difference between signing a contract for a non-pornography film and signing a contract for a pornography film? Both are trying to get value for their money. I don't see how a 16 year old would be any more exploited than a just-turned 18-year old.

Don't 16 year olds already have such a power to sign employment contracts? What's the big difference? The same rules that apply to a normal employment contract when dealing with 16 year olds e.g. voidable can still apply here.

16-18 year olds aren't treated the same as adults and are classed as "young people" and there are protections on what they may and may not do especially when it comes to health and safety and supervision. Given that you cannot employ a 16 year old as a barmaid, I cannot imagine that anyone would let one work as a pornographic actor.

Further, I'm not convinced that the majority of porn actors would be employees in any case. I can't see past them working under individual contracts (although not of employment).

[Rhadamanthus]

Marry at 16 and you have to wait two years before you can buy champagne for your wedding. I don't know why these things are.

[Katie_p]

Because to have/make/distribute etc images of an under-18 engaged in sexual activity is a crime. It's a way to protect (mainly female) young people from making big mistakes. Having sex with somebody you love and trust is very different from making porn, which is something a lot of porn stars who enter the industry legally at 20, 21 etc. struggle to deal with, let alone somebody of 16 who is not really mature enough to make any lifelong decisions yet.

[Friar Chris]

Because there is not one age or state of mind that simply makes one 'competent' to make decisions on every scenario (at least as a legal cut-off): just because someone is considered to be most likely mature enough to consent to sexual intercourse at 16, doesn't therefore mean that level of emotional and cognitive competency is also sufficient to consent to producing media of such acts for commercial reproduction and distribution.

Don't ask me how or why the decision was made, but essentially it is because it is considered that consenting to produce or feature in pornographic material has greater or different repercussions than simply consenting to sexual intercourse. I'd guess that some concerns include: whilst having sex with a partner at 16 usually harmless, exposing a 16 year old to an entire industry based on sex, having them posted on the internet without fully understanding the consequences (societally?) and further making images of potentially not fully physically developed bodies acceptable in pornographic material thus contributing to issues re: pædophilia?

[greenrm]

Perhaps it is an attempt to discourage ephebophilia.

[Annoying-Mouse]

(Original post by Clip)
16-18 year olds aren't treated the same as adults and are classed as "young people" and there are protections on what they may and may not do especially when it comes to health and safety and supervision. Given that you cannot employ a 16 year old as a barmaid, I cannot imagine that anyone would let one work as a pornographic actor.

Further, I'm not convinced that the majority of porn actors would be employees in any case. I can't see past them working under individual contracts (although not of employment).

But, you can't logically compare the two. Age to purchase alcohol from a bar is 18 thus it follows that a 16 year old isn't allowed to be a barmaid. Whereas, the age of consent is 16 thus a 16 year old can have sex with a 50 year old or whatever they want.

[Annoying-Mouse]

(Original post by Katie_p)
Because to have/make/distribute etc images of an under-18 engaged in sexual activity is a crime. It's a way to protect (mainly female) young people from making big mistakes. Having sex with somebody you love and trust is very different from making porn, which is something a lot of porn stars who enter the industry legally at 20, 21 etc. struggle to deal with, let alone somebody of 16 who is not really mature enough to make any lifelong decisions yet.

Your romanticizing sex. How do you know they're going to **** someone who they love as opposed to a one-night-stand? The only way pornography will effect someone life-long is due to societal attitudes and the fact that they'll be negatively judged for it. How exactly is a just out of school 18 year old any better equipped?

[Psyk]

(Original post by greenrm)
Perhaps it is an attempt to discourage ephebophilia.

So it's a "touch but don't look" policy?

[philistine]

It's simply atrocious.

How can you possibly call the schlepping about in porn, which usually takes place on a sofa, acting?

[greenrm]

(Original post by Psyk)
So it's a "touch but don't look" policy?

It certainly wouldn't be the first misguided action of any given government in the history of the world