Sixty is the New Sixteen

Thanks to states rights, the USA is famous for idiosyncratic sexual legislation. In this most diverse of countries, it is as though only a state line separates Calvin's Geneva from Gomorrah. The latest strangeness come from Massachusetts, where a bill has been proposed which would make it illegal for anyone with a disability, or over the age of sixty, to pose nude. Since the law applies not only to photography and film, but to "representation or reproduction in any visual material" we may presume that pictures like this would be impounded in the unspellable state.



The purpose of this legislation is supposedly to "protect" elders and people with disabilities from predators like Gustav Klimt. Since "elders" includes anyone over sixty (which, as various commentators have pointed out, includes such hotties as Meryl Streep and Richard Gere) and a "disability" can include almost anything, we are talking about a pretty large section of the population (in fact, if it had been Florida rather than Massachusetts, it might have been the majority). Obviously, this is nothing to do with protecting people. Sylvester Stallone does not need protecting. Clint Eastwood does not need protecting (though I don't think he's been in any sex scenes since he turned 70). Anthony "Human Stain" Hopkins doesn't need protecting, and Jack Nicholson certainly does not need protecting, though it is possible that the days when society needed protecting from him are finally over. Oh, and since blindness and deafness are disabilities, are we to believe that the law is also designed to protect people like Stevie Wonder or Marlee Matlin? (Stevie will turn sixty next year, so he'll need double protection.)

Of course, treating elders as minors and the physically disabled as mentally deficient is nothing about protecting anyone. It's about some people gong "Eeewww, that's icky!" and getting upset when others do not share their reaction.