April 9, 2009 | 8 Comments

Could Elder Porn Become The New Child Porn?

Could Massachusetts really make it illegal to feature anyone over 60 in a pornographic film? Has the state never heard of performers like Dave Cummings and Shigeo Tokuda?

Seriously, though, we’re extremely disturbed by the implication that people over the age of sixty don’t have the ability to decide for themselves whether or not they want to be featured in an erotic film. What next—are we going to force everyone over the age of sixty to retire and move to Boca?

· Proposed Ban on Making and Distributing Pornography Involving >60-Year-Olds and the Disabled (Including Spouses or Lovers Consensually Photographing Each Other) (volokh.com, thanks FalconryoftheEroticVariety!!)
· State puts porn pervs in sights (bostonherald.com)
· An Act Relative to Posing or Exhibiting or Disseminating Material of an Elder or a Person with a Disability in a State of Nudity or Sexual Conduct. (mass.gov)
· Thumbnail by Katrin Trautner

Tags: , , , ,

Author:Lux Alptraum

View all posts by Lux Alptraum →
  • Come a little Miroslav Klose You’re My Kind of Man

    This reminds me: has Soylent Green ever gotten the Porn Valley once-over? If not, can we please request Not Soylent Green XXX be the next in that line of films?

  • MalzyWheels

    I hate Mass. This bill would make it illegal for me to be in porn, too. While that probably will NEVER HAPPEN, I’d like to keep my options open, thank you very much. Why don’t they tax the bejesus out of porn that has older and/or disabled people in it? They tax the bejesus out of anything else.

    I didn’t realize that the Constitution had restrictions eliminating its protections for older people and/or the disabled.

  • Phas3Sh1ft

    If that happens, then Mass is f’d when it comes to many cougars and milfs, but especially gilfs. Realistically though, what’s next? Not allowing minorities to be in porn because it’s “culturally insensitive”? What’s the limit to it, and why did they set an arbitrary age at 60? What was going through the lawmakers’ minds?

  • MalzyWheels

    @Lux Alptraum: Absolutely. Just like a court would never uphold an unfair contract between a party and somebody with diminished mental facilities, a reasonable law could be written providing the court with the same power of judgement to determine whether or not a person had the wherewithal to truly consent sexually or not. I have a feeling the courts already have this power in determining rape cases.

    Hate to get too political here, but I live in NH and I see the disintegration of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts progressing every day. This is what happens when there is no opposition party to check and balance things out.

  • Anonymous

    I live in Cambridge and heard about this a couple weeks ago. It’s completely appalling on every level. Also of note is that “mentally disabled” could be construed to include people with depression, anxiety, etc… any number of mental problems that fall outside of the “ward of the state” status that the bill seems to imply.

    I sent this to the National Coalition for Sexual Freedom but have not heard anything.

    “Liberal” Mass, my ass.

  • gandalfthegay

    Casting for “Chowdaheadz 3″ is already in the works…Ha-ha-haha.

  • gandalfthegay

    Who else is now pushing really, really hard for a 60 and over anal ensemble just to spite the hell out the people behind this whackness? Perfect Title: Massholes.

  • Anonymous

    Ridiculous. I asked an opinion poll question about this on Yahoo! Answers and had a wonderful older man message me about how much he and his wife enjoy porn featuring people their age. It really drove home just how hurtful a law like this is, because, as much as I understand their good intentions, you can’t tell me that ageism (“Ew, who would want to watch old people having sex?”) and discomfort (“Little old ladies like my gram gram would never do something like that.”) plays into its reception.