These are just some thoughts designed to make you think:

There will always be a controversy about the age of models appearing in gay porn. I am talking about the younger models here of course, as anyone who can prove that they are over 18 years of age may appear in pornography if they so chose, straight or gay, and heaven knows I’ve seen enough retired men and women making some pension-boosting money from appearing in porn movies.

But, if someone has proved that they are over the minimum age, why should there be a controversy? We’ve seen, in the past, some well known models (or those who went on to become well known) get themselves caught up in a ‘scandal’ for one reason or another. Lying about their age at the time is a common one, and unscrupulous producers knowingly using under-age models is another, though thankfully less common, reason.

In the USA there is a code called Title 18, section 2257, sometimes simply known as ‘2257’. This is a requirement of producers of adult material to be able to prove the legal minimum age of their models at the time of photography, or filming. You will see this at the bottom of many pages on most porn sites, certainly all those produced in the USA should carry a link to a page, or information, where anyone can find out the address of the producer/keeper of records, and make an enquiry into the age of a certain model. If an enquiry is made then the company must be able to produce documentation backing up and proving their claim that their models were over 18 when filmed. That’s the simple version of the code. And it means that, in the USA, producers must have copies of things like driving license, ID, etc. on file, by name of model, showing that they were legally allowed to appear in porn at that time.

That’s good, it’s something that all good and respectable porn producers would want to have, and insist on having before they get a guy naked. But it actually only applies to the United States. So, when you find a company from, for example, Europe, stating their 2257 information, it actually doesn’t mean anything, legally. It has been taken as good practice by good producers, no matter what their country of residence and business. (Other countries have other laws, some have no laws at all.)

But it’s always interested me to notice that many a ‘teen’ and even ‘twink’ site that carries content featuring ‘just 18’ etc. boys will have their 2257 address of records in a place like Cyprus, or Prague. Are they really based there? Is this just a way of avoiding the legalities? And if so, why? And what happens if you are based in the Czech Republic but your servers are in America and your content comes from Spain? Where do you stand legally then? It’s a bit of a minefield.

And there is another one. What about those sites (I won’t mention names here as I don’t want to get caught up in the fuss) that feature young looking models. What’s the difference between someone who is 18 or 19 but who looks 16 or 17 appearing in a movie, as opposed to someone who is actually 16 or 17 appearing in one? Obviously it’s not legal, in most countries, to show under-age nudity and it’s probably not moral either, although that point could me argued on a personal level. And yet there are many sites around where the models look younger than they are, and we’re told that they are ‘just 18’ etc. to start with.

It looks like there is a fine line between under-age porn actors and porn actors who look underage.

Just as a final, slightly unrelated thought, I’ll leave you with this. A couple of years ago there was a controversy because a famous actor, who was then 17, appeared naked on stage, in London, in a play. You could go and see him nude live on stage, but you couldn’t show photos of him nude on the web – though people did.