I'm not convinced what you claim is actually true. "description of, or information relating to, a child that indicates or implies that the child is available to be used for the purpose of sexual exploitation" Throughout the statutes the key references are those relating to exploitation. There is no blanket statement of illegality as regards fiction and under age sex that I can find.
Child Trafficking and Pornography Act, 1998, "'child pornography' means— (a) any visual representation— (i) that shows or, in the case of a document, relates to a person who is or is depicted as being a child and who is engaged in or is depicted as being engaged in explicit sexual activity," […] document' includes— (a) any book, periodical or pamphlet, and (b) […]" I stopped researching once I found this piece of law, so I never came across what you've quoted, but I'm still not sure whether one law nullifies the other. The 1998 act is still in law.
I stress that there is ambiguity… which is why this is rarely enforced in book censorship. But, like 'document' which is explained clearly at the bottom of the act, 'visual representation' does have a definition, however, it is unclear: “visual representation” includes— (a) any photographic, film or video representation, any accompanying sound or any document, (b) any copy of any such representation or document, and (c) [… " Now, the phrase 'or any document' is important. What is the predicate in the 'or' statement? Is it 'any photographic, film or video representation, any accompanying sound' or is it 'any accompanying sound'. This is actually a big problem in law: linguistic ambiguity. (I was considering, for my final year in college, to write a program that could find any such occurrences). Furthermore, the first statement has yet more ambiguity. It uses the term 'any photographic, film or video representation' without including the term 'pornographic'. Take, for example, the book Skippy Dies (which includes sex scenes between 14 year olds). There's a picture on the front of three youths and there's a photo on the back of the writer, so this is a 'photographic representation', and it is accompanied by a 'document' (the text). This means that it fulfills definition (a), even if those who wrote the law didn't mean it to.
"'child pornography' means— (a) any visual representation— (i) that shows or, in the case of a document, relates to a person who is or is depicted as being a child and who is engaged in or is depicted as being engaged in explicit sexual activity," ---------------------------------------------------------------- By law, both the image and the accompanying document fit the criteria. An image explicitly shows, a document relates to; the inclusion of the subordinate and the extra verb 'relates' further underlines that the document itself is under the definition, even if it must be accompanied by some visual representation to pass. Also, 'visual representation' is itself semantically ambiguous. It could mean a picture or an image visually described in text. It could even mean a pi-chart! The act should have used a term like 'pictorial representation'. Personally, in some ways, I think Ireland is so backward that whoever wrote this law, skimmed through it too quickly because talking about sex crimes is still a taboo in the country.
Nobody under 18 should really be having unprotected sex anyways, just to kind of throw that out there. Speaking as a teenager myself, i wouldn't want my 16 year old daughter/son having sex with some guy/girl when they're supposed to be focusing on their studies. As a story perspective, that's completely fine for two characters to do so if the writer decides it should be relevant, as long as it doesn't overshadow the story to the point of being reproaching.
All that is true. As a Christian I'm not even sure you should have sex before marriage anyway. But teenagers and adults and Christians and non-Christians alike, in general, go right on ahead. To depict this in a novel could actually be argued to be the author simply trying to be realistic lol. On the other hand, assuming the story is set in the west in the modern day, it would take a little convincing - definitely some good reasons - why on earth two teenagers wouldn't have sex.
I love me some stats, thank you @123456789 I believe in realism. If somewhere 8 year old kids are having sex with each other then somebody has to write about it. In fiction you should be able to write about even the nasty stuff. I only have problem with if it glorifies or otherwise shows it in a positive light.
Unless you're stalking actual teenage couples and recording their experiences, I don't have a problem with it. I wouldn't even have a problem with it if it was written to be arousing. Sixteen year-olds aren't exactly prepubescent children, after all.
