Philosophy Now Forum

The age at which one can legally feature in a pornographic film or images, hardcore or softcore, is 18. This age was set by the 'Optional Protocol on the Sale of Children, Child Prostitution and Child Pornography' in 2002. Despite this the age of consent for sex is usually lower than 18 in most nations/states.

Why is it acceptable for individuals below the age of 18 to have sex but unacceptable for them to feature in pornography? Why is it justifiable to make sexual images/video of a teenager aged 18 but not 16? If lawmakers are concerned about potential exploitation why isn't the age at which one can be in porn 21 or above?

It should be noted that in the UK the 'Sun' and other British tabloids frequently featured topless 16 year old's until 2003, this had no adverse effects on child welfare in that country.

Personally I've always favoured a learning-based legality about both age of consent to sexual action and selling the acts. The way the laws work now they are very blunted, meaning they do not take into account individual information tailoring laws for the abilities and disabilities of each one, but works by rough statistics and general agreement, both of the last two of which are very biased on a case to case level, bringing harm to as many people or more I would say as it has "helped".

However, if the question is not really the actual age, but the comparative age between consent to personal sexual act and consent to public sexual act (pornography, prostitution and the likes of it), then it makes sense that a person should have some experience and time to develop thoughts about their sexual selves before they expose their sexual selves to the public. As such it makes sense that it is higher.

On a more practical level it also makes sense, because the hornyness of teenagers should intuitively be a stronger urge than the will to make money off it, and as such, it becomes more urgent for people to reach their age of consent for personal sex than public sex.