Franke-Ruta's efforts to throw more pornographers and consumers of pornography in jail and make our young women less wild has been criticized by a few libertines like Ezra Klein, but I don't think she goes far enough. Can a girl of 21 really know what she is consenting to when she signs a release form for a pornographer? Does she really understand what the ramifications might be later in life? That is why I propose that we raise the minimum age of consent to participate in pornography to 65.
I think by 65 a woman has finally attained the maturity necessary to weigh the pros and cons of participating in pornography. Since she will most likely be retired or on the way to retirement by that age, there is little danger that such images will come back to haunt her in her career.
A tangential point about California law. It is illegal to serve alcohol at a place that allows fully nude dancing, but it's fine to booze it up if the women are merely topless. What this law has done is cause most fully nude places to employ mostly women in just past their 18th birthday while topless places tend towards the over 21 year old dancers with surgical enhancements. Seems like nonsense to me.
No comments:
Post a Comment