Should 16 - 17 Year Olds Have Porn Access?

[johnstone1985]

The Liberal Democrats Political Party (centre politics) in the UK are calling for 16 - 17 year olds to be able to freely access and star in pornography.

I thought that this would make an interesting discussion point.

http://www.ypnmagazine.com/news/index.cfm?fuseaction=full_news&ID=3529

May I also add that the Conservative Party (right wing politics) held what they claim as the first LGBT Conference for young people, whilst at the same time opposing Civil Partnerships :-/ May I also add it was attended by just three MP's (Members of Parliment).

 

[jonb]

Um, NO! Except for Traci Lords; trust me, she wasn't innocent. Seriously, look at some of the porn out there; I could never understand the psychology of it.

I'm not surprised at the political hypocrisy. Gay marriage isn't really a hot-button issue unless you are gay; if you are, there are 1,138 reasons to be in favor of gay marriage.

 

[13788]

Tender: NO.
that is too young of an age, too inexperienced, and too moldable to ruin with some of that trash.

Tender

 

[13788]

Duo187: I think it really doesnt matter, they view it anyway.

 

[thelastoneever2000]

absolutley not. granted plenty of them access porn freely, im sure most teens are guilty of this, but to STAR IN IT? thats too much. 16 year olds are still developing physically so dont even get me started about their mental condition.

 

[vkngsxgd8]

I am screaming this one from the roof-tops again ... prurient prudent fucking 200-yr old death-knell puritanism is talking here, this is fucking 2004 ok, the age of consent in most european progressive countries is 15, so whats the big deal, if you have grass on the field, and are a willing participant, then play fucking ball already ... i agree that in some cases people could be coerced if they were weak-minded, but come-on ! I was having sex with both sexes at 11 already and knew completely what i was doing, and thoroughly enjoyed it, so so much for that puritanical theory. Word is born LOL !!!

 

[13788]

Javierdude22: [quote author=vkngsxgd8 link=board=meetgreet;num=1080858135;start=0#5 date=04/02/04 at 22:45:09]I am screaming this one from the roof-tops again ... prurient prudent fucking 200-yr old death-knell puritanism is talking here, this is fucking 2004 ok[/quote]

Yes it's 2004, 10 years ago it was 1994, what's your point?

[quote author=vkngsxgd8 link=board=meetgreet;num=1080858135;start=0#5 date=04/02/04 at 22:45:09]the age of consent in most european progressive countries is 15, so whats the big deal, if you have grass on the field, and are a willing participant, then play fucking ball already ... i agree that in some cases people could be coerced if they were weak-minded, but come-on ! I was having sex with both sexes at 11 already and knew completely what i was doing, and thoroughly enjoyed it, so so much for that puritanical theory. Word is born LOL !!! [/quote]

We had a similar discussion once on this topic. I think your completely off on two things: That only in sóme cases kids might be coerced, and that they know what theyre doing.

Fifteen year old kids should be finding out what sex is with their peers, not with a beardy 48 year old guy with a 350 dollar digital cam and pedofile character traits. I think it's the dumbest thing I've heard in a long time, and I can't actually believe the British government is seriously considering 16 year olds to be allowed to star in porn videos.

It has nothing to do with some Puritan bullshit. It has something to do with common sense.

 

[B_DoubleMeatWhopper]

I think 18 is a reasonable age for access to porn. I never viewed porn before I was eighteen. However...

[quote author=Tender link=board=meetgreet;num=1080858135;start=0#2 date=04/02/04 at 13:44:11]that is too young of an age, too inexperienced[/quote]

Inexperienced 16 - 17 year-olds? If by that you mean sexually inexperienced, you live in a different universe than I, Tender!

 

[13788]

Tender: [quote author=DoubleMeatWhopper link=board=meetgreet;num=1080858135;start=0#7 date=04/03/04 at 07:34:15]I think 18 is a reasonable age for access to porn. I never viewed porn before I was eighteen. However...


Inexperienced 16 - 17 year-olds? If by that you mean sexually inexperienced, you live in a different universe than I, Tender!
[/quote]


no, no, no sweetie, thats not what i meant at all...

i just meant i guess without clarifying that they are too young really to undertstand the impact of their choices, and the resposibilities that go along with that.
also they have very impressionable minds at that age.
i certainly did NOT mean they are not sexually active, or dont know any factual knowledge about sex.
on the other hand, i think we'd be suprised how many at that age, think you cant get pregnant if you 'pull out', and that AIDS is only something 'other' people have to worry about.... many teens at 16 have to be reminded to take out the trash, but we should think they are mature enough to make the decision to expose their body to the whole world? :

i do think though that it all depends on the person as an individual. some teens by that age are far more mature mentally and emotionally than others of the same age.

I just think 18 is a better age to allow that.
If the person isnt old enough to decide at 15 or 16 who they want to marry, without parents signing, not old enough to vote, or buy a house, or join the military, or purchase alcohol, ect, why then do we think they would be mature enough for exposure such as pornography, or worse yet POSING in it! the fact, is a few years down the road, some of those kids who were taken advantage of, would more than likely be drastically sorry, embarassed, ect, and could even have an impact on their future careers ect...
a teen does A LOT of growing up emotionally, mentally between 15 and 18...


Tender

 

[B_RoysToy]

A very reasonable, well sought through post, Tender. If you're not a Mother, you should be, b/c your maturity would give proper guidance to the young. How scary to think UK is considering such a change in age permission.
The 'anything goes' mentality always seems eager to jump on the Puritanical labeling band wagon to justify their stand. Standards and cultural growth and training are to be respected in my way of thinking. It appears that you have certain standards, too.

Luke

 

[jonb]

As I said, 15-16 is too young to be starring in it. And let's face it, porn isn't 'art' any more than Britney Spears is. (Actually, there isn't much difference between Britney Spears and porn, except the porn has better music.)

Hey, here in California, they're trying to give fourteen-year-olds the vote. Of course everyone acts like they're fourteen at the polls anyway, and if you don't believe me, two words: Governor Schwarzenegger.

 

[13788]

GeorgenFLA: No, 16 is too young.

 

[13788]

roedhunt: Interesting post and interesting replies.

Now for my two cents worth...

In regarding teens viewing porn....Absolutely! Come on, guys.. when did you first see a porn movie? I know I for one saw one when I was 17, but most guys have seen one much earlier. Perhaps there could be two kinds for them to view... One that shows young men how to pleasure a young lady properly, the other for young ladies to see making love and not "sex". As for the rougher kind of sex, those should be marked 18 above... or even 21 and above. That way, by then, men and women will understand that those are for fantasies, and not real life sex. I'm speaking of course of bondage, rape and humiliation of women).

Remember when beer was 18 and 21? That was used as a "starter" for young adults to start drinking. Now most drink because it IS illegal.

As for starring in porn.... hmmm. That's a toughy... I suppose if and only if, the young adults were mentally and physically ready. And of course have it be "fluff" sex. That way, it would show young adults so-called "normal" sex. And I feel there should also be gay and lesbian films to show that it's natural and not something to be ashamed of. Also, these films should emphasize on safe sex.

So, there you go.......

 

[13788]

ORCABOMBER: Blargh!

Sorry, but watching 16 year olds of any sexuality shag is going to get the police on your doorstep faster than physically possible.

I think that the laws should remain, that way, if a 16 year old is screwed up viewing porn, at least the law can say, "your fault". Things are meant for adults, because supposedly they are more mature, and in some aspects they are. Take this board for example, some kids do not need to worry about some of our issues so young, while others are OK. The right to view porn or debate in adult discussion should be "as worthy of what they want".

But staring in it is dodgy. I mean, it's only going to be pre-teen girls and old guys really, isn't it? I mean, how many young men are actively gay? The thought of even letting that kind of activity (young porn) be viewable is discusting!

 

[Pecker]

Can you imagine what the mass production of acting in porn day after day with literally hundreds of other young people would do to a 16-year-old's psyche?

We'd end up with a society of anti-social automatons.

We just don't want to make this kind of act legal do we?

As for their viewing the stuff, we can try to keep it from them but whether to look at it or not is ultimately their decision regardless of the law. In my view, most of those who do look at porn do it at first out of curiosity. Not all of them will desire to see more of it. Nevertheless, there is a reason why 18 is the age of majority concerning such things and it must be enforced where possible.

 

[13788]

roedhunt: [quote author=Pecker link=board=meetgreet;num=1080858135;start=0#14 date=04/19/04 at 05:20:32] Nevertheless, there is a reason why 18 is the age of majority concerning such things and it must be enforced where possible.[/quote]

I hear that from a lot of people. It reminds me of a conversation I had with my grandma when I just turned 17...

We were discussing sex (yes, with my grandma) and the age issue came up. She went on about how kids are too young for sex and they should wait til they are an adult. So, I responded, "So you're saying that everything I do until I turn 18, I can't do because I'm too immature and not able to handle sex?"

She said that's right... Hmmmm. "But as soon as I turn 18, I am." That's right. "So you're saying, the day before I turn 18, I'm too young for sex, but the very next day, I'm old enough." Uh, yes. I just gave a look and said, "You know that's the most silliest thing I ever heard don't you?" She sheepishly smiled. So I asked her when she first had sex. "It was with your grandfather and I was 16".

I couldn't help but laugh my butt off. And this was back in 1928!!!!! Oh my....

So, I feel, it all depends on their maturity. They have always said girls mature faster than boys. AND, a boys sexual peak is at 17. I have slept with many men who were older than me (yuck), and they were like a little boy in bed.... That's when I started with younger men. More adventureous and not stuck in a routine.

Here's some thoughts to think about...

If it's so wrong for watching porn, why is there sex age laws that allow as young as 15 years old, to HAVE sex?????

And why are there so many free clinics that give out free rubbers and the pill to underage kids??? Isn't that CONDONING sex?

So basically, it's like we are saying, "Okay, you being 14, we will get you on the pill, give you free rubbers knowing or assuming that you are having down-and-dirty, close-up, all smelling, all seeing, all positions sex... BUT, you can't view porn, because you are too young to see it. Do it, but not see it." HMMMMM. Yeah, ok. That makes sense... :-/

 

[jonb]

Perhaps if they had sex with plot? I mean, my main problem with porn is that they're a little light on things like plot and characterization: Personally, I like to have my neurons stimulated as much as my gametes, but that's just me. And have you seen some of these activities in porn? The Germans have fun with feces, the Japanese employ Cthulhu, and Merkins actually make me consider that maybe Reich was right.