I'm not 100% sure that US law is the same as the law in Canada but I suspect it is.* Here in Canada it is illegal to even portray someone who is over 18 as being under 18. That's still considered child pornography. This is one of the things that got Max Hardcore incarcerated for a while. In at least one scene he had the model announce that she was only X years old, with X being a number well below 18.
It's obviously a bit of a grey area because a woman over 18 can wear girly clothes and still be acting over 18. A good example of this is Hookup Hotshot. I've watched every scene there and while some of the models are dressed to look young they're not playing a character under 18. I suspect it would be different if the models were declaring their portrayed age to be under 18.
I also suspect that back in the days when Max was prosecuted the circumstances were different because there were a lot more DVD purchases going on. As DVDs were shipped across state borders that attracted federal enforcement. DVDs are much less of a thing now and it's probably a lot harder to enforce interstate rules with internet downloads.
I recall that something similar to the interstate shipping of DVDs happened to Tommy Chong with cannabis paraphernalia. Some years ago he had a business that sold bongs and stuff like that. Undercover federal agents repeatedly placed orders for his stuff and he repeatedly refused to fill those orders as it would attract federal scrutiny. Then the agents offered him so much money that he fell for it and he shipped the product and then he gets charged, convicted and jailed. I'm not sure why offering many times the going rate for a bong was not found to be entrapment.
* This probably plays a role too as the US is a Republic with each state and the federal government having the ability to set their own criminal laws. That creates a bit of a patchwork of laws that would make things more complex than in Canada where only the federal government has the constitutional authority to create criminal law though it's up to the provinces to enforce most of it. It is easier though since criminal law in Newfoundland is exactly the same as in British Columbia. The same can't be said for the US where the criminal law in Rhode Island may be different from the criminal law in Alabama.
^What he wrote. You can ask Max Hardcore who while he did dress his models to look like teenagers. He never implied that any of them were underage but he was still accused of producing child pornography. He got lucky the first time that happened but the Government found a work around by later on charging him with producing obscene material which is much harder to defend against and subsequently went to prison when found guilty.
Is this true to a wide extent? For example Hollywood has played a lot with underage in sexual contexts like Blue Lagoon, Taxi Driver, American Beauty, even though there's no actual nudity involved and are US productions
^ There is always the distinction whether the item in question has artistic merit or whether it was produced solely for the viewer's arousal. Jodie Foster portraying a child prostitute in that film was never meant for the viewer to fap to. With regards to Blue Lagoon, things are a bit different, and I highly doubt the movie would be made the way it is today.
^ and ^^ Agree that artistic merit is a defence. I can't say for certain but I suspect the current child pornography laws post-date those particular Hollywood films. In Canada, as with most countries, those laws are evolving as new means to create and share that material pops up.
It seems no one is immune from this insidious stuff. Just a day or so ago a member of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police was charged with possessing and distributing child porn.
There's also a cultural different view a then and now
Today it would never be allowed to film a sexualized movie such as Alberto Lattuada's Così Come Sei (Stay as you are 1978 ) with Marcello Mastroianni and Nastassja Kinski and Italian actresse Barbara De Rossi both Seventeen at the time of filming and both fully naked on screen
Or 1970 Performance starring Mick Jagger , Anita Pallenberg and an unknown actress called Michèle Breton who was underage at the time of shooting ,allegedly sixteen and she not only performed fully naked much like Jagger and Pallenberg themselves but she was highly sexualized. I'm not sure this movie ever saw the light in the USA
Let's talk about Louis Malle's 1978 Pretty Baby with Keith Carradine , Susan Sarandon and a 12 years old fully naked Brooke Shields
I don't think any of those movies would be allowed today
The portrayal of any underage character involved in sex scenes implying that it is ok for an adult to have sex with those isn't allowed anymore even when the actress portraying it is an adult much less when it's actually underage in many Countries all over the world in mainstream Cinema already but it's absolutely forbidden in porn
many Countries still allow the circulation of those mainstream movies due to their artistic value but not for porn , no matter how artistic you may consider it.
And for the record due to the sexual nature of this board I just remind you that no picture of anyone underage for whatever reason is allowed on ADT even when it has no relation with sex , it's a MAJOR NO NO.
^ ^^ and ^^^ First of all thanks for your replies and making me informed and aware of how things work.
I'd like to point out how there's a thin line between an artistic product portraying sex and pornography, how we should classify erotic films? or softcore movies? An indie director could fill his hypothetical movie about child prostitution with closeups of several underage naked girls(without sexual acts involved) and make it to distribution?
Regarding what LCF wrote, I quote Wikipedia: "Pretty Baby has been attacked in some quarters as child porn. It's not. It's an evocation of a time and a place and a sad chapter of Americana" could this statement be valid today? Depicting naked underage in a historic movie could pass?
Besides it's horrible how Hollywood took advantage of Brooke Shields when underage not just once! Crazy!
He totally implied they were underage. He actually asked their age and they'd say they were 11 or 12, the youngest I heard was 8 years old. Yes there was a notice at the start of the movie that everyone was over 18 so you knew these girls weren't really underage. They definitely pretended to be explicitly underage during the scenes though. It wasn't just the clothes, he made them say their age and then often referred to it during the scene either by number or just called them a pre-teen. This wasn't every scene obviously but it happened in a lot of them. He'd then ask if they had a younger sister, how old the sister was and then said to bring her around next time. A lot of the ageplay stuff has been removed from later versions of the scenes and you will notice lots of audio glitches as they took that stuff out.
I'm pretty sure I read that the underage element is what gave the FBI their way in to raid his operation.
^ That's my recollection too. The underage aspect was implied in many of his scenes but in at least a few he had the models look into the camera and say 'I'm only X years old!' That's pretty explicit. I'm pretty sure this was his undoing as well.
pornography wasn't sex but fantasies of an impossibly hospitable world 12377 Posts 9/07
Posted - Jul 21 2020 : 5:39PM
This is a big grey area. The US tends to be the most strict but it is worth noting that many films from the past already mentioned and many porn classics from the 70s are still available with this theme.
A 'proper' mainstream film would still get a lot more leeway than a pornographic film these days, Mysterious Skin and Diary of a Teenage Girl come to mind as more recent films dealing with underage abuse and sexuality that received little to no blowback.
Max wasn't convicted solely on the pretend underage theme as far as I know, it was likely the combination of piss, vomit, abuse, crying and underage play that led to the obscenity conviction.
My understanding under Canadian law was that the courts ruled that purely fictional portayals of underage sex for one's personal use was not illegal but distributing it is. It was the supreme court's attempt to reinterpret a rushed and poorly written child pornography law passed by the government.
This still leads to odd possibilities where two teens having consensual sex and then texting each other the pics could be prosecuted for child pornography. So the law is a mess on this right now in Canada and it may be a long time before it gets straightened out.
^If I remember correctly. There is more than one case in Québec of underage teens arrested and charged with owning/producing child pornography when they sent each other nude pics of their girlfriends and/or girls at their school.
"Pornography: That which excites, whether from approval or disapproval." ~ Leonard Rossite 2347 Posts 12/17
Posted - Jul 27 2020 : 11:23AM
From what I understand; the issue at hand is that the payment processors have a strict set of guidelines that studios must adhere to if they want to make money. No studio is going to break the rules and have no-one able to process payments to their respective website.
As I said there's a now and a then , I don't think Hollywood exploited anything especially if you consider that Brooke was represented by her own mother , as I said at thet time it wasn't considered an issue, nobody considered The Blue Lagoon as child-porn even though she was 15
In 1992 Jean Jacques Annaud's L'amant Jane March was 19 but portrayed an underage character having clandestine sex with a 30 years old man
I don't think it would be made the same way it was made back then , the sex scenes were very steamy , too much for today's acceptance I believe
^You might not get these exact same movies shot today but you still get a few directors shooting fairly similar movies and some that shoot some pretty extreme sexual stuff starring performers that are teens or close enough. Take a look at 2015 The Diary of a Teenage Girl for an example of similar content and then take a look at Blue is the Warmest Color or the two Nymphomaniac movies.
^ & ^^ That's what I'm talking about!Hollywood exploited her, it's just weird that out of the 9 movies she appeared when still underage 3 were considered controversial even at that times, accused in several occasions of being pedopornographic and gross. Her mother didn't want the best for her daughter, she only cared about money and viewed her as a potential source of good income
not true, thora birch shows her tits in amercan beauty and she was under 18 also brooke shields showed her tits in blue lagoon under 18, as well as mila jovovicvh in the remake
yeah but i think we can all agree that max hardcore shouldn't have been arrested or convicted or accused of anything criminal. the way i see it is porn should be able to portray nude under 18 girls having sex, i mean what harm does that do? and it's hotter than portraying an 18 year old year old and after all teens under 18 have sex, so this is reality and normal. as long as the girls aren't portrayed as 12 or 13 or 14 years old.
pretty baby is truly amazing. we'll likely never see anything like that again. and brooke, topless was so hot in it, even at 12 years old. about this: The portrayal of any underage character involved in sex scenes implying that it is ok for an adult to have sex with those isn't allowed anymore even when the actress portraying it is an adult much less when it's actually underage in many Countries all over the world in mainstream Cinema already but it's absolutely forbidden in porn
what if both people in a movie are underage and have simulated sex in a legitimate movie. is that legal? like in that scene in the movie kids in 1995. i swear that blonde in the beginning has to be under 18.
this law reminds me of the age of consent law in american states where it's actually illegal to have sex with a 17 year old if you are 18.
tat's horrible and not right. that shouldn't have been legal to censor stuff from a legal porn video. it was legal when they made it so it should always be legal.
when you mentioned similar movies that shoot some pretty extreme sexual stuff the film nymphomaniac volume 1 came to my mind. that was extreme but after having watched hardcore porn videos and movies before i watched it in a theater i thought it wasn't extreme or explicit enough. they should have shown actual sex, then it would have been extreme compared to today's movie standards and kinds of to the standards of hardcore porn. there have been plenty of legitimate movies with actual, real sex in them. like the brown bunny with chole seviney.
is one of the 3 besides the obvious 2 wanda nevada? where she played an underage girl who wears lipstick and is portrayed as kind of a jailbait tease, and is all sexual with an adult played by peter fonda?
[Link]
Max Res Default Deactivated User
64 Posts 8/20
Posted - Mar 8 2021 : 5:43PM
The mid to late '70s to early '80s seem like a whole other reality. There are People covers with Brooke Shields at 16 that have no compunction about sexualizing her. Katja Bienert was underage while performing in fairly explicit Jess Franco films like Eugenie and Lilian, Katya Berger in Piccole Labbra, etc.It was wild when I discovered there was a movie in which a 14 yo Brooke Shields is the romantic co-lead against a grown-ass man.
However, it should not be promoted as desirable. I agree with the law as it stands. We should not as a society promote pedophilia. If that makes it harder for a few jerks to get their rocks off so be it.
^^True but she was still completely nude and basically playing a child prostitute 2 years before in Pretty Baby. Could you get something like that shot today anywhere in the world?
I remember seeing an article many years ago about a world famous photographer who had an particular exhibition in some world famous art gallery. Within that exhibition a number of those photos were of nude underage children (not explicit or genital focused or anything, but still nude).
Now this guy had a concept, and apparently nudity was a part of it. And he did do it the "right way" as to protect both himself and the children, as in their parents had to always right there during the entire photograph sessions, there was an independent 3rd party always there as well. No child was ever left alone with any 1 person at any point. This was to ensure the protection of everyone involved.
Now I saw some of these photos and while I kind of see what he was trying to do, and acknowledge that none of it was sexualised in any way (it was more focused on natural form). It was definitely not my kind of thing and I thought the concept was pretty unnecessary personally... but the reactions of people who only saw it as straight up pornography and exploitation of children who wanted these exhibitions to be closed down immediately was intense. Massive protests, lots of anger, lots of death threats towards the artists etc.
When I first saw this all I could think was... it was the people who were so angry that were the ones who were unable to see unclothed children as something other than sexual objects. Healthy minded people would never see children that way, because they are not sick in the head. The protesters were the ones who were perspectively fucked up.
HOWEVER, when I thought about it some more I realised that there was a serious problem. Regardless of whether this particular artist was completely pure in his concept, and that those photos were completely non-sexual in the eyes of anyone who is not a sick and twisted wanker. These things don't change the fact that there are a lot of very sick people out there. And by normalising this practice of photographing children in this way, and having something that sick bastards can point to and say "Oh, I'm just doing the same thing as that guy did" pretending to be artists etc... terrible inevitabilities would happen elsewhere in the future and children will suffer as a result.
So from this perspective... in the end I found that I unfortunately had to agree with all those protesting fuckwits, just for completely different reasons. That this artists exhibitions would have to be shut down. Not because anything he did was wrong, or that his exhibitions were evil or anything. But purely because there are always the mentally sick who can't see these things in any other way, people would use his work to take advantage of children in terrible ways, and because certain individuals would inevitably use it as a way to validate that their sexualisation of children for their own sick desires.
My point is... if everyone was mentally healthy. Then roleplay stuff of 18+ actresses pretending to be explicitly underage in pornography would probably be fine. People would understand it for what it was, roleplay fantasy not as validation to pursue such things in the real world. For example, pretending that your wife was still in high school like she was when you first met for bedroom games type stuff. You know... like healthier pursuits rather than twisted ones.
But we don't live in this world. Too many people are fucked in the head, too many people you just can't trust them to not pursue terrible things and constantly use things in the world to "validate" these behaviours. They struggle to separate fantasy from reality. They can only see certain things in a sexualised way... whether it actually is or not. They just can't be trusted to not reach horrible conclusions if given the slightest ability to do so.
Which is why these rules and limitations have to be enforced. Which is why people who are not mentally sick (like the artist above for example) can't understand why these things get banned and prevented from being done when from their perspective it is completely innocent and pure. It is not because of people like him or the majority of people who understand and can perceive the difference between art and pornography or fantasy and reality. But because of the minority of people who simply cannot differentiate... and therefore will use it to validate pursuing doing terrible things to innocents in the real world who need to be protected as much as possible from them.
This is why certain things cannot be done. And why these rules and limitations had to be created. And unfortunately... I have to agree that this is absolutely necessary due to the world that we currently live in.
