Active Users:1209 Time:22/11/2024 06:42:12 PM
Back to Messageboard Post New Thread Search Help Stats Rules
Yes, better safe than sorry, imo Darth_Katie Send a noteboard - 20/01/2011 10:31:13 PM
how? why?

Clearly you are no longer a child. It is not the type of body that would appeal to pedophiles, who prey on children.

I don't get it.

Eighteen is the age of legal adulthood in most places, prior to that age there are a good number of restrictions that are primarily intended to protect the children. Making it illegal to distribute pictures or movies of them naked is one of those protections. I suppose they could do something like the laws on tattoos and go "you can pose naked if you've got your parents' permission to do so", but since that would be a nightmare to keep track of, this way is probably better. :P


That would be a complete nightmare ... what about parents who are taking advantage of their children? How do you separate them from actually mature teenagers who are making reasoned choices themselves? It would be impossible, and it's better to just make a blanket statement and legislate that. Practically, you have to draw a line somewhere and 18 seems like a good enough choice.

And of course on an issue like this there is a strong incentive to use the same age cut-off everywhere, else it'd be undermined rather a lot and international cooperation to track down distributors of child porn would be hampered.
Insert theme music here.
Reply to message
MTV and Child Porn Darth_Katie - 20/01/2011 03:07:20 PM 999 Views
I find the idea that a 17-yearold is covered by child porn laws strange Camilla - 20/01/2011 03:44:46 PM 468 Views
Age of consent varies state by state, but 18 is he cutoff for other things nationally beetnemesis - 20/01/2011 05:25:09 PM 426 Views
I think 18 is the cut-off for child porn in most places, regardless of the age of consent. *NM* Legolas - 20/01/2011 08:26:30 PM 190 Views
... Camilla - 20/01/2011 08:27:56 PM 465 Views
In fairness, there are other considerations than just what turns pedophiles on. Legolas - 20/01/2011 08:35:45 PM 448 Views
Yes, better safe than sorry, imo Darth_Katie - 20/01/2011 10:31:13 PM 440 Views
It's the sexualisation of a legal minor Wibble - 23/01/2011 02:21:16 AM 443 Views
So do I DomA - 26/01/2011 12:19:25 AM 409 Views
Precisely. *NM* Camilla - 26/01/2011 09:35:07 AM 173 Views
I don't know the show... ironclad - 20/01/2011 04:10:27 PM 482 Views
I don't think it's necessarily a scandal Brian - 21/01/2011 01:48:27 AM 493 Views
Why's that an issue? j-whitt987 - 20/01/2011 09:17:53 PM 454 Views
Also a fair point. *NM* Camilla - 20/01/2011 09:56:46 PM 175 Views
You're joking....right? Jeordam - 20/01/2011 09:58:58 PM 458 Views
No. j-whitt987 - 20/01/2011 10:57:32 PM 507 Views
Ha, those points about reality tv are spot on. Darth_Katie - 20/01/2011 11:18:27 PM 486 Views
That's not fair. Chas - 21/01/2011 08:30:35 PM 475 Views
The British version aired on BBC America. It has the same scene. Nothing happened. *NM* Chas - 21/01/2011 01:30:10 AM 173 Views
Bah. Nevermind. The actors were all 18 or over. *NM* Chas - 21/01/2011 08:29:02 PM 172 Views
Who watches this stuff, anyway? *NM* Zalis - 24/01/2011 04:01:08 PM 166 Views
Back to Messageboard Post New Thread Search Help Stats Rules

Reply to Message

Block Quote Paragraph Quote
Formatting
Smiley Codes