After reading both articles, it seems like the Rep's heart is in the right place... but the law needs to be written with much more detail to insure it doesn't remove the sexual rights of other individuals.

Also, read: ageism.

So this is saying when you reach 60 you should just tie a knot in your Dick?

More or less. Although trying to protect individuals not of sound mind, she's basically saying that anyone over the age of 60 is too mentally enfeebled to have consensual sex. Ageism, in the least.

Thanks, bingo for linking the two articles!!! double upvotes!

I agree. It seems as the Rep has honourable intentions, but ageism and perhaps naivety is written all over the whole thing.
If that's what it takes to strengthen things...

Hey...that will only make it harder.

Where DO you draw the line? I'm disabled, but sex helps some of my illnesses, and we prefer some "edgy" practices. Hubby is always careful not to overtax me, and will stop if I feel bad, but it usually helps instead.

And we intend to keep on with our marital practices for another 50 years!

Bulls**t.
This is nothing but bigotry.

"Good Intentions" Perhaps, but then again many people had good intentions when they didn't want "the weaker sex" have to work outside the home, be able to wear jeans, have to vote, etc, etc, etc. Many had good intentions when they felt that non-whites were less intelligent and couldn't deal with the responsibilities of being free.

If people over the age of 60 are incapable of consenting to getting naked and performing, then they are certainly incapable of being a politician, drive, work in any sort of unsupervised capacity, watch children, vote, or anything else.

Obviously I could go on an on comparing various personal and civil rights fights. It all comes down to the same thing. People are free. This rep may be offended at seeing someone with wrinkles get naked but that is the rep's problem. People can and do have sex drives their whole lives. People can and do enjoy photographing and being photographed. People over 60 and people of any age who have some sort of disability can make an adult, informed decision to engage in sex whether for private enjoyment or for a business.

If they are incapable of informed consent then current laws make it illegal, whether they are 18, 30, or even 80. There is no need for a bigoted prejudicial law saying NONE of "those kind of people don't know right from wrong and can't make their own minds up or have a sex drive". I am obviously not advocating the situations listed in the second link, but current laws could prosecute them. Also those are isolated cases. There are far more people who are 65 who agree to - who even enjoy being photographed. There are certainly people who are 20 years old with some sort of disability who enjoy pornography.

(I won't even bother to acknowledge the idea that someone who is disabled... say someone who is an amputee is somehow an imbecile and is incapable of making adult decisions and having a desire to make love.)

This is one of the worst pieces of proposed legislation I ever heard of. Hell this would make it illegal for 2 adults in a loving committed relationship to photograph/record each other.

I imagine this will cost him any chance of re-election at least it should. This should cost him any chance of any sort of authority.

What he ^ said.

What's wrong with the current law. After looking at the two articles, it seems to me like the rep is trying to say that "Not only those that we know of are incapable of informed consent, but those that have a slightly higher change of being incapable of informed consent" should be "helped".

That's rediculous. As 2many said, currently (and not only for sex industry stuff) the law protects those that are disabled to the extent of not being able to take care of themselves, including elderly that have mental problems. But come on!

The fact that they mention elderly at 60 is already rediculous. Most of the very smart people on this planet are very close to their 60s. You telling me they can't make those decisions on their own? Hell they can do it better than many of us can!

Who wants to keep giving government the power to do stuff like this to us? These legislators sound like they got a severe case of the willies just thinking about their parents having sex, so they pass laws against it to keep them from having to think about it.

If they cannot show that a high percentage of people would be harmed by something, they should not be allowed to make laws prohibiting it. How can they really argue that someone "performing" in a room with a camera is harmful compared to a room without?

This whole thing is recockulous.