Just an open question since we keep getting situations like this where the industry effectively admits it is incapable and unwilling to act to stop the worst elements of the industry (child exploitation, human trafficking, forced involvement, rape etc) that it's probably best to just ban the industry together.
Notice though I said using real people, with AI slowly getting better and CGI improving, why do we need real people to make porn? Just have something animated to be realistic enough as I don't give a fuck about pixels or a drawing. Have whatever kink you want, have entire porn snuff films whatever as no REAL people are getting harmed in the making if it. The worst that can happen is stressed artists trying to meet deadlines.
This might also affect adult streamers which is just a bonus as it'll be like a re-run of Projekt Melody when she became more popular since she did more than just strip and stare blankly at the camera till donations came in. A lot of porn or porn in all but name streaming (which I include Twitch on that) get money off just simply being pretty and that's it, denying that as an easy route will probably cause a shift in a lot of media.
I wouldn't advocate a FULL ban as no matter your feeling on it generally, it is a release so going full puritan invites a backlash and probably just forces more men to deal with insufferable feminist women. But just making that release fully fictional based than support an industry that sweeps horrific practices under the rug for money is probably for the best.
Ah, yes, the other reason I dislike this discussion so much. People are so keen to prove their point and they come in with silly one liners and try to derail, instead of talking the issues.
Yes, two sixteen year olds can consent to sex with each other but, having not reached the age of majority, there are other things they can't consent to, like engaging in certain types of business or contracts; or buying alcohol, tabaco, or firearms. As an aside, I think eighteen year olds, being legal adults, should be able to buy alcohol, and the only reason they can't is because the federal funding via Department of Transportation comes with massive stipulations, so each state is forced to comply with certain things that aren't even federal law. But, again, that's an aside.
Point is, it's not as simple as 'can they consent,' there are other restrictions that can be placed on minors. That's why the phrase "consenting adult" is significant. Sixteen year olds are allowed to consent in specific scenarios, but are not adults and can't consent to some contracts and the like.
This is pretty simple, and none of your one liners take away from my view that porn is protected speech.
So it's not free speech cause rhe law won't let them sign a business contract to make porn despite them being old enough to have sex together?
It just breaks down. Laws are not arbiters of morality. Why is one thing legal and the other not? You don't like this question because you've been ingrained to think lewd footage is some 1st amendment protected right.
Once their 18 this magically changes the nature of porn? Nah
You have to draw the line somewhere. Once they're eighteen they're magically responsible enough buy tobacco? Once they're eighteen they're magically responsible enough to join the military? Again, a line must be drawn. And that's to protect children. You need a point where you can say, this person isn't an adult.
Yes, it's arbitrary, but I don't see any better suggestions on that issue.
I draw the line at porn. You would rather protect it. Even in 1789 the 1st amendment had limitations on lewd speech. You virtue signal your libertarianism until you die. You even admit it's harmful and immoral. If laws don't reflect morality what is even the point of having a law?