Depicting it is definitely illegal. Doing it is definitely not.
It's still okay to watch it live, though, right? ;)
I feel creeped out by the idea that someone would make a porn (or not) movie using women who look like pre-pubescent girls, presumably to appeal to the market for adults who believe that it is ok to have sex with children.
I'm not sure that that presumtion is entirely well-founded. As someone alluded to above, the audience for CSI is presumably not "adults who think it is okay to murder people".
Pina colada mix, isn't it? (Cue 'getting caught in the rain' reference.)
What creeped me out on Cops tonight was the guy terrified and in tears being sent back to prison.
His pain was palpable and he looked like a statistic in the making.
But making money off innocent (presumption of such until proven) peoples misery and calling it entertainment turned my stomach tonight.
I normally like it (guilty sercret) and couldn't stop laughing at the cops. A few weeks back when the cop chased the Toyota Hilux X-country and then turtled his car and it then caught fire was hilarious, but tonight was human misery tonight.
Regarding the comment about censors being confused about the difference between female ejaculation and peeing, if the chick is thrashing around, making those ridiculous porno pleasure-shrieks, and doing the o-face, then yeah, maybe it could be confusing.
Speaking as someone who has seen both, I don't think they're that easy to confuse.
And regarding the dearth of information about female anatomy, it still galls me that I didn't know about a clitoris until I read a book designed to explain sexuality to teenage boys. The companion volume for teenage girls did not mention a single word about it. It was in the boys' book because it was all about "if you get to doing the sexxx0ring with a young woman you're really twuley in love with, but she doesn't seem to be enjoying it that much, here's the magic button" (slightly paraphrased). I don't seem to recall much of an explanation on the mechanics of the penis in the girls' book either. The books were published in the early 80s.
if the chick is thrashing around, making those ridiculous porno pleasure-shrieks, and doing the o-face, then yeah, maybe it could be confusing.
I read somewhere (if I remember I'll post the link), that the internet is democratising porn. People are posting their own content onto the web, and suddenly porn is being defined as somewhat real images of somewhat real people, performing somewhat real acts. Which I think is a good thing.
Which is fine and good if it's consenting adults - but you don't have to be an 18 year old to have your body on the web, and there are also plenty of young looking 18-19 year olds blurring the boundaries.
I feel creeped out by the idea that someone would make a porn (or not) movie using women who look like pre-pubescent girls, presumably to appeal to the market for adults who believe that it is ok to have sex with children. Call me old fashioned, but I can't be ok about that.
Have I missed a point somewhere? Am I being overly sensitive? I get the feeling from comments that I'm the only one out here feeling very disturbed by the idea of porn using child like actors.
Agreed that making anyone look pre-pubescent for sexual purposes is creepy, however it's possible to put an adult woman in a situation (makeup, costume, etc) where she appears under eighteen and engaged in sexual behaviour. The question is whether recording that should be illegal, even though the act itself is legal.
The law says it's okay for two sixteen year olds to have sex, because they're old enough to do so. I believe it's also legal for others to watch them in the act (assuming they're all consenting). *Videotaping* the two sixteen year olds is illegal, because you've now made a recording of under-18s having sex.
What if the person doing the videotaping one of the sixteen year olds engaged in the sex? A sixteen year old is old enough to have sex, but isn't old enough to be in a recording of the act, but is old enough to be charged with the crime of recording it. How's that consistent?
Pina colada mix, isn't it?
What a waste! Now there's the real scandal.
You'll have to listen for a minute or so to "get it"
Yay, another Fatcat and Fishface fan. Testify, brother.
I've definitely met eighteen year olds who could be passed off as 12 or 14 year olds. Maybe not pre-teen though. In the magic world of movies full sized people can be made to look like little people (even before WETA) but it probably takes more effort than most porn movie makers are prepared to go to.
I do have to admit my forays into porn in my youth consisted of Debbie Does Dallas, and a creepy movie which we stopped watching after 5 minutes when it crossed the line from consensual sex to rape. Never had the urge to watch other people faking sex again.
I feel very creeped out by the idea that a 16 (13,14,15) year old would want to have sex with someone 10 or so years older than themselves. I know that there are plenty of instances in real life as well as romantic literature of exactly this situation. I've felt my skin crawl watching young (19-25 yr old ) men (and yes it does seem to be more men than women) chatting up very young teen girls. Friends who had an apartment in central Dunedin said it was heart breaking the number of obviously under 16 year old girls they saw being given alcohol by young men with intent. I want to shake the girls and say, "these guys are slimey creeps, you can do better than them".
So, yes I have a problem with 18 year olds being dressed to look 16, because chances are it wont be 16 year olds getting their jollies from watching them. And normalising sex between 16 year olds and (let's pick a number) 36 year olds is not what I want for tomorrow's youth.
I've definitely met eighteen year olds who could be passed off as 12 or 14 year olds. Maybe not pre-teen though.
That involves an odd definition of "pre-teen".
Not so sure about peeing etc, is that illegal in NZ?
Depicting it is definitely illegal. Doing it is definitely not.
It's not that simple. It's illegal if the depiction promotes (or tends to promote) the activity in a way which is degrading or dehumanising. If the depiction is somehow empowering and not degrading, it will/should be treated like other porn. If it's part of pornography it will probably be illegal, as I imagine it will be dehumanising, but that's not necessarily the case. Pornography (or anything else) is also illegal if it encourages rape, but a depiction of rape in film is not necessarily illegal.
Similarly, mere depiction of underage sex (or sex between of-age consenting 16 year-olds) will not necessarily be illegal. If the film encourages the exploitation of children for sex it will be illegal, but the extent to which it deals with sexual conduct by or with children or young persons in a manner injurious to the public good is only a factor in determining whether something will be banned.
Outside material that encourages exploitation etc., New Zealand censorship law is highly nuanced.
OT- Fatcat & Fishface! I've corrupted a generation & a 1/2 of family kids with this wonderful duo!
O stuff - "Selfish Shellfish" has just got stuck in my brain again - the cover of the CD shows possible relevance to thread...
Dinah, an eighteen year old can be made to look under-age, but "child-like"? How would you make an eighteen year old look like an eight year old?
gebetics- diff'rent strokes/ webster.
it is never ok to depict sex with children (or animals, touch my dog and you're a dead man).
You'd probably be better aiming your threat at women there too. Get's you thinking though; people dressed as gorillas? or other animals? ethical conundrum? Underworld? werewolf/vampire? Avatar it's ok if you insert your brain waves in another beast's body? The Narnia Chronicles? Would it be ok to depict a certain Mr Tumnus getting artistic with a 'foxy' centaur mare?
This is the one that usually sticks in my head.
(Isabel -yay! I think it's "We are 3 little pipis in our pipi shells" that got urm picked on-)
Nice, I'm always a sucker for a well played voice trumpet.
It's illegal if the depiction promotes (or tends to promote) the activity in a way which is degrading or dehumanising. If the depiction is somehow empowering and not degrading, it will/should be treated like other porn. If it's part of pornography it will probably be illegal, as I imagine it will be dehumanising, but that's not necessarily the case.
To paraphrase Emma's original question though: how is it sensible that performing an act is legal, but depictions of that act are illegal?
I'd wager that if you picked an activity - let's say murder - and asked people "what's worse: watching the real thing live or watching a fictional depiction of it on TV?" most people would say that watching the real thing is worse - and yet the law says the opposite in the case of objectionable porn
*I realise "worse" is a bad word to use here, but it's wine o'clock and I can't think of a better term.
Would it be better if the law continued to prohibit paedophile acts but allowed the production of images that represent those acts? How could you be satisfied that an image represented someone over 16? Might not another viewer think the subject was 14 or 12? And might not the maker of the image intend it to represent someone younger than the age of consent?
How could you be satisfied that an image represented someone over 16?
The US has its 2257 regulations that require performers to be over 18 and producers to keep records of proof of age. I presume we have similar rules.
And might not the maker of the image intend it to represent someone younger than the age of consent?
They do. I've seen such things. Often they'll begin with the performer being asked her age (and replying "18", or above), but yes, the scenes with pigtails, lolipops, etc., are clearly are designed to give that impression.
The question of whether this is harmless fantasy or fuelling desires that would be wrong and illegal if carried out in reality is a tough one, and the regulatory responses to either perspective are highly problematic, too.
I tend to come down on the freedom-of-speech side, since the implications of banning such depictions seem very worrying (namely that it's a short step to deciding that all illegal acts should be prohibited from fictional depiction, and I guess that's then only another step from deciding that all immoral acts should be, too).
On the other hand, it would be very troublesome if such depictions did promote actual pedophilia, but the literature seems not to support that. Just as well; if it did, I'd be really unsure of the answer.
Under what circumstances should it be illegal to look at a picture of something it is legal to do?
Don't know about "should", but do we not now have some rules about the depiction of smoking on fictional television pieces? (though perhaps that's about workplace safety rules; I don't know).
I come down on the protecting-children-from-predators side, whether those predators be pornographers or their clients. I do not share your confidence that the "performer" is telling the truth when stating her age, and feel more than a little uneasy that she should have to do so.
I am also unconvinced by your slippery slope argument or your claim that this is a freedom-of-speech issue. The important issue here is the protection of children. That is far more important than the right to get off on material which is morally dubious even if it is legal.
The important issue here is the protection of children.
No question that that's one of the important issues, but there are others too. "Protect that children" does not trump everything, otherwise we should ban cars, dogs, open stovetops, and so on.
I am also unconvinced by your slippery slope argument or your claim that this is a freedom-of-speech issue.
If we were to ban such depictions, we'd be implicitly accepting that fictional depiction of an act encourages actual committing of that act. Why then should that rule not be applied to any other illegal act?
[Paul, I'm somewhat playing devil's advocate here in order to see what does and doesn't withstand criticism.]
You'll have to listen for a minute or so to "get it"
Now I know what they mean when they suggest the use of the "Parental Lockout System"
I think 3410 has some valid points, we could hardly argue Paul that enough is being done to protect the children at the moment, and what little we can do will all add up one day.
The question of whether this is harmless fantasy or fuelling desires that would be wrong and illegal if carried out in reality is a tough one,
I'd hazard a guess that just as not all people who fantasize about rape would care to engage in the act, similarly not all those who fantasize about sex with those who are underage are prepared to engage in the act. Currently now there is no morally legitimate outlet for the 'watchers', and i feel making distinctions between watches/fantasizers and engagers could be useful at the very least that it would free up police time.
I'm sure there must be cases of these numerous people we read about being arrested for possession of child porn who would never think of engaging in such an act. If they could be steered towards a more morally acceptable avenue then it could only be a positive.
Tangentally, I had a rather disturbing conversation the other day with someone who had had sex with his parents his entire life (and saw nothing wrong with it), and I found it rather difficult to justify my moral standpoint to him that what he and more so his parents did was wrong. For a moment I got the slightest inkling of how arbitrary these laws and our judgments are. Still don't condone it, but really got me thinking.
My concern is more for the performers than the act performed.
Well, if anybody has a problem in this direction then maybe they need one of these handy iPhone Apps like "iRecover – Pornography Addiction Recovery"