>In the case of child porn, we know they were forced into it. We know that only if we consider a child's consent and an adult's retroactive consent as worthles

>In the case of child porn, we know they were forced into it. We know that only if we consider a child's consent and an adult's retroactive consent as worthless, which is exactly what I'm arguing against. >Currently in the case of an adult porn star who was forced into it as a child, that is illegal. Is it illegal to distribute the pictures of them as an adult which they currently agree to? >I understand what you are trying to get at, but the point of any age based legislation is based on the idea that children are less able to understand consequences than adults. The victims are explicitly not given control over whether they were 'really' a victim or not. Which is why I proposed that we wait until they're an adult; now they can understand consequences, and so their consent should now work.