Porn and Prostitution

[garybeck]

OK, now that I got your attention.... I have a real question, or perhaps it's just a discussion item.

I could never understand one thing:

If you pay a woman to have sex with you, it is considered prostitution which is illegal and both you and she could go to jail.

But, if you do the exact same thing - pay a woman to have sex with you - but you do it in front of a camera, with some kind of intention of publishing the photos or videos, then it's considered pornography and it's perfectly legal.

The act itself could be the exact same in both instances. In both cases you're paying her to have sex. the only difference is the camera.

does this make sense?

(note, I'm not necessarily an advocate of porn or prostitution. I just wondered about this).

[onehandle]

1. The 'actor' is not doing the paying?

It's usually a company.

That's my guess.

[hughee99]

8. If I understand correctly, a number of actors have started their own production companies.

You can now produce movies with little more than a camera and "onscreen talent". Some of the actors have cut out the middle men to be their own producers either with distribution deals with larger studios (to handle those things they can't do on their own) or with direct internet sites. In some cases, the actor may be the one actually doing the paying.

[EOTE]

2. No, it doesn't really make sense at all.

And I am necessarily an advocate of both porn and prostitution.

[alcibiades_mystery]

3. Wow, a comparison that's never been made before!

Tonight's late night dorm room discussion: porn v. prostitution - it doesn't make sense, yo!

[garybeck]

5. wow thanks for your nice response!

you sound like a person i'd really like to sit down and have a beer with. so friendly!

[dairydog91]

16. A legal distinction so dumb that even college stoners understand just how dumb it is. nt

[Capt. Obvious]

4. I look forward to this thread

and the resulting Meta thread(s)

[alcibiades_mystery]

7. ...snarf...

Dude, didja ever notice that, like, Shaggy likes Scooby Snax, too? I mean (...inhale...), I mean...isn't that dog food, yo? (...exhale...) Doesn't make sense!

[cthulu2016]

6. Why focus on porn? How about mainstream film?

If I paid Julie Christie a million dollars to get naked and make out with me that would be prostituion, despite the lack of penetration.

(Try running ads offering the 'will get naked and make-out with you for $100" and see.)

But Warren Beatty has certainly done that, as an actor/director.

[randome]

9. Simply because payments made outside the mainstream economy often entrap people.

And prostitution, even in the open, is unregulated so no one can see that the 'actors' get the medical care, regular exams, etc. that they need.

[kenny blankenship]

10. It's the principle of free emission

Uhm I mean Free Expression, y'know : Art. Free expression that you pay for. Which brings up the second point. Pron is a product. The product here is the mass produced representation (very Artfully done of course!) of human sexual relations, a common subject of poetry from Pindar to Shakespeare to Al Goldstein. And it's not like the laws of the United States to interfere with the right of a capital investor to move a product. Drugs of course being the outstanding example to the contrary.

[Warpy]

11. Nothing this puritannical country does about sex makes any sense

I'm all for legalizing and regulating prostitution, getting health checks for sex workers and getting the pimps out of the business.

Porn doesn't do a thing for me, but there again, sex workers need legal protection, especially for their health.

Both provide outlets for sexual fantasies and I see absolutely nothing wrong with either except the continued hypocrisy reflected by US laws.

[arcane1]

12. I am guessing that it probably has something to do with the intention

but who knows?

[bluedigger]

13. Is it the second week of the month already?

[Kurska]

14. We shouldn't have to play legal games like that in the first place. Both should be legal.

Legal and regulated, that is how it should be.

[socialindependocrat]

15. If they can't tax the transaction then, it's illegal....

It's like gambling: If you get 6 people and sit around a table playing cards for money
then the police can come in and arrest you and fine your ass - which is how they get
their money.

But you can go to a race track because the Gov. gets a portion for the proceeds.

It's like MJ: If you grow your own or buy from a friend down the street you can
get arrested and go to jail.

But, if the Gov. gets a portion of the proceeds, then it's perfectly O.K.

Isn't this why they threw all that tea in the harbor so many years ago?

[jollyreaper2112]

17. doesn't make sense

If I carry a camera and say I want to pay a prostitute to have sex with me on camera and she turns out to be a cop, am I still busted?

What I'd really like to know is if a porn star would be weirded out by someone paying to have sex with them not on camera.

I assume a big difference here is that porn guys generally look much better than the average john. Maybe that makes it seem different to the woman? I have never known any porn stars.

[Egalitarian Thug]

18. The publication/distribution is the difference. That gives porn protection under the 1st Amendment.

See Miller v. California

But you're right, it makes no sense. As with everything in America, the real issue is power and money, publishers and distributors have lots and prostitutes have none. If the prostitutes got together and started making the right contributions, I have no doubt that they could have their profession legalized at the federal level under the 14th amendment.

[dairydog91]

21. I seriously doubt that they could establish a right to work in a certain profession.

Maybe if Lochner-era judges were more sex-positive, they'd have considered a right to work in prostitution. Both today's conservatives and liberals would probably vote against a "right" to work a particular profession; liberals because it goes against the general state/federal authority to regulate economic activity, and conservatives because even if they did support Lochner-style economic rights, they'd probably invent an exception to give states general authority to regulate sex.

[Egalitarian Thug]

24. Not that it will happen, but never underestimate the power of lots of money in this system.

[bemildred]

19. It's only bad if you enjoy it.

If it's work, it's OK.

[sibelian]

20. Good question.

I don't know.

[Recovered Repug]

22. There are various regulations covering the production of pornography,

proof of identity and age for instance. I'm guessing that most prostitutes would be unwilling to provide that information to a customer. If the woman turns out to be a cop and you don't follow the regulations correctly, you might end up trading prostitution charges for federal charges.

[Iggo]

23. Simple.

One's a service and the other one's a performance.

[madokie]

25. When you try to legislate morality this is what you get

[Motown_Johnny]

26. Loophole. Arguably, making a movie falls under Free Speech

and therefore can't be limited (within reason).


They needed to draw the line somewhere so this is where it ended up. It may not really make sense but neither would any other distinction.

[Kablooie]

27. The difference is one pays for pleasure, the other pays for future profit.

Pleasure is illegal profit is not.

[WinkyDink]

28. I've wondered the same. I guess "art" makes the difference.