Porn = Prostitution (why is one legal?)

[Vicious88]

I'm a little confused over this, so please someone explain it to me...

How is it that when a woman is paid for sex, its illegal and they both can go to jail - yet when a woman is paid for sex and they video tape it, it's legal and they can go on to make money?

I'm focusing on the basics here, so bare with me... Prostitution is illegal for multiple reasons, but mostly because it spreads the risk of STDs and it encourages adultery... Yet porn stars spread the risk of STDs to ever person they sleep with, and the movies encourage adultery.

When considering whether or not to make this post, the thought occured to me, "well there is a bit of difference, because prostitutes are manipulated by pimps into sharing the profits, and told who to sleep with..." but then this thought occured, "Porn 'stars' are manipulated by producers to share profits, and told who to sleep with..."

Please, please explain this to me!!! I know the laws vary from country to country, and even from region to region (for example, in Nevade, prostitution is legal, except for inside the city limits of Las Vegas), but I think that where one is illegal, the other should be illegal too. I'm not asking for prostitution to be legal, I'm really not, but someone needs to realize that only reason these prostitutes are prostitutes is because they were to unattractive to break into porn.

Governments should stop half-enforcing their laws. Either enforce it all the way, or turn your back completely - choose a side.

I've heard also that the 'porn industry' defends their 'work' using the first ammendment. Saying that it is for "entertainment purposes" and that sexual expression is the "right of every American Adult"... I'd love to see a pimp claim this defense. 'Cause you know they could. It is a form of sexual expression, and it has to be entertaining, otherwise it wouldn't be such a profitable industry.

So lets equate some lingo, shall we?
Producer = Pimp
Porn Star = [reconsider word choice - it'll get you banned]

Anyone who makes money by having sex IS PROSTITUTING THEMSELVES!
_________________

Ah, Signature Changes...

[Vicious88]

I'm a little confused over this, so please someone explain it to me...

How is it that when a woman is paid for sex, its illegal and they both can go to jail - yet when a woman is paid for sex and they video tape it, it's legal and they can go on to make money?

I'm focusing on the basics here, so bare with me... Prostitution is illegal for multiple reasons, but mostly because it spreads the risk of STDs and it encourages adultery... Yet porn stars spread the risk of STDs to ever person they sleep with, and the movies encourage adultery.

When considering whether or not to make this post, the thought occured to me, "well there is a bit of difference, because prostitutes are manipulated by pimps into sharing the profits, and told who to sleep with..." but then this thought occured, "Porn 'stars' are manipulated by producers to share profits, and told who to sleep with..."

Please, please explain this to me!!! I know the laws vary from country to country, and even from region to region (for example, in Nevade, prostitution is legal, except for inside the city limits of Las Vegas), but I think that where one is illegal, the other should be illegal too. I'm not asking for prostitution to be legal, I'm really not, but someone needs to realize that only reason these prostitutes are prostitutes is because they were to unattractive to break into porn.

Governments should stop half-enforcing their laws. Either enforce it all the way, or turn your back completely - choose a side.

I've heard also that the 'porn industry' defends their 'work' using the first ammendment. Saying that it is for "entertainment purposes" and that sexual expression is the "right of every American Adult"... I'd love to see a pimp claim this defense. 'Cause you know they could. It is a form of sexual expression, and it has to be entertaining, otherwise it wouldn't be such a profitable industry.

So lets equate some lingo, shall we?
Producer = Pimp
Porn Star = [reconsider word choice - it'll get you banned]

Anyone who makes money by having sex IS PROSTITUTING THEMSELVES!
_________________

Ah, Signature Changes...

[Vicious88]

I would like to take a moment and congradulate this topic for going so horribly long without a reply. I suppose the bare nature of it was just too offensive, lol.
_________________

Ah, Signature Changes...

[Vicious88]

I would like to take a moment and congradulate this topic for going so horribly long without a reply. I suppose the bare nature of it was just too offensive, lol.
_________________

Ah, Signature Changes...

[Lanfear]

Okay...lets see what I can come up with...

Porn stars are forced to keep up with their health. They have to take tests to make sure they have no STDs. I believe it really isn't prostitution because...well lets make a list of differences:

Prostitution: Customer pays prostitute for sex

Porn: Filmmaker pays actors to sleep with each other.

Prostitution: Customer has sex with prostitute

Porn: Filmaker films and watches the act and sells the tape, not the sex.

There are lots of other differences. But it still doesn't justify it porn nor prostitution. The world would be better without both.

(BTW is there away you can make it to where you can see the message you are replying to?)

Maybe it was your use of "[reconsider word choice - it'll get you banned]" and people liking porn is the reason this post has no reply. -har-

This taken from sexwork.com

What is prostitution legally?
Most of us typically think of prostitution as involving a customer who pays a prostitute for providing sexual services. We intuit that pornography, by contrast, involves a customer paying an actor for providing sexual services to another actor. In other words, prostitution is generally understood as the bilateral trading of sex for money, while pornography involves the customer of an adult film paying money to watch other people have sex with each other, while receiving no sexual favors himself in return. In keeping with this distinction, notes Justice Goodman, "the pornographic motion picture industry has flourished without prosecution since its infancy."

Distinctions
Most distributors of pornography would express shock at the prospect of being prosecuted for promoting prostitution. Under Miller v. California, as long as a work, taken as a whole, has "serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value," the First Amendment protects its distribution. Given this legal principle, how could pornography be criminal, in the way that prostitution is?

Who is paying whom?
When pornography is correctly understood as involving real sex, the question in comparing pornography to prostitution becomes whether who is paying whom matters (or should matter) to the law. That is, should it make a difference whether Jason pays June to have sex with Jason or whether, instead, Filmore (the filmmaker) pays June to have sex with Jason? If these two scenarios seem functionally equivalent, then there may be something seriously wrong with our laws.

Why court protects adult movies
It's almost certain that on its current precedents, the U.S. Supreme Court would hold that garden-variety pornographic actors are indeed engaged in First-Amendment-protected activity, so long as obscenity is not involved. Odd as it may seem, what appears finally to make all of the difference is the mode of gratification for the person who is paying but not himself seeking money.

Because the impact of pornography occurs through the mediation of an audience witnessing a performance, rather than an audience receiving physical services from a performer, pornography and its making qualify as First-Amendment protected speech.

Does this make sense? Consider again the significance of the sexual act: legal consequences can follow from it and it can, accordingly, be regulated by the law in a variety of ways. Though two people may very much want to have sex with each other in private, the law can intervene to say that they cannot, just because one of them seeks money and the other gratification, for example. If, however, both members of the couple are in it for the money, and there is a man with a camera taping them, then the sex is insulated by the Constitution from legal regulation. That is in fact the law, but Jenny Paulino can hardly be faulted for calling it arbitrary.

Sorry for the long post...thought this question was interesting.
_________________

[Vicious88]

To see the messages you're replying to, you can scroll down to the bottom of your "Post a Reply" window and there, in a scroll box, is the thread to which you're responding.

I appreciate the actually research that was poured into this. Thank you for that. I'm glad someone finally took an intrest in this post, lol.
_________________

Ah, Signature Changes...

[Vicious88]

To see the messages you're replying to, you can scroll down to the bottom of your "Post a Reply" window and there, in a scroll box, is the thread to which you're responding.

I appreciate the actually research that was poured into this. Thank you for that. I'm glad someone finally took an intrest in this post, lol.
_________________

Ah, Signature Changes...

[Orion]

Hmmm. 2 very long posts in a row. In that case ill go with the shorter more stubborn route!

I will disagree wholeheartedly against any woman being forced against her will to sell her self and be 'pimped'

Pornography though, isnt some chick on the streets. Most times (and not including those old black and white films of poor girls having to do porno against their will) its 'actors' performing a role. In Nevada its legal cause its taxed aint it? Hell is porno taxed? if so then that solves the debate right there. Taxing makes it right lol

This is the same as if I said "Well its illiegal to hit someone with a steel chair." But when its video taped with a big 'W' logo at the bottom of the screen its fine.

In the end, its all just entertainment.

So stop being abunch of hippies and just enjoy porno for what it is. Entertainment to be enjoyed (levels of enjoyment can relate to wether or not your in a relationship lol)
_________________
"When it comes your time to die, be not like those who weep and pray for a little more time to live their lives over again in a different way. Sing your death song and die like a hero going home"
-Cheif Tecumseh, Shawnee Nation

[Smashboy]

Frankly, I don't see why prostitution is illegal. The days of pimps are pretty much over, it's all about escort services and clean, healthy entertainers. High class hookers are called that for a reason.

What it all boils down to, in the end, is that people put too much emphasis on controlling the behavior of others. If we lived and let live, especially with something as trivial as sexual lifestyle, the world would be a much happier, healthier place to live in.

[Vicious88]

I'd agree with you about happier, but I don't know about healthier. I mean, right now we're pretty bad off if you consider the statistics:
1 out of 11 Black Americans are infected with HIV.
1 our of 3 Americans have some form of Sexually Transmitted Disease.
72% of Babies born are born to mothers between the ages of 16 and 24.
61% of all marriages in the last 10 years have ended in divorce.

Those are some pretty alarming figures, really. If the average person (and I do mean right around 70%) were not completely and utterly moronic, than we might be able to live and let live. But right now, we are ruled (quiet literally if you consider our government) but incompitent morons.

Thus, I introduce you to a theory I've had for a long, long time. It reads simply this:
"Almost every single problem we encounter in day to day live could be solved if 70% of people, world wide, just dropped dead or disappeared."

And it's true. There'd be less demand on resources, less demand for grunt labor to make civilized life possible, little to no war, less polution, and a much more peaceful happy existance for our remaining 30%.

Now, tragically I take this theory I made and hold it as a personal hope towards some of the more currupt industries and people who are out there, like the Medical Industry, the Oil Companies, Pedophiles, and even the average egotistical dirt bags. If people like that could compose the 70%, then the remaining people of the world would be able to make life perfect for themselves and their offspring.

Basically the theory is cold hearted in the sense that we no longer try to clean the curruption of man kind through the means of changing each individual, but rather by whiping out the majority.
_________________

Ah, Signature Changes...

[Vicious88]

I'd agree with you about happier, but I don't know about healthier. I mean, right now we're pretty bad off if you consider the statistics:
1 out of 11 Black Americans are infected with HIV.
1 our of 3 Americans have some form of Sexually Transmitted Disease.
72% of Babies born are born to mothers between the ages of 16 and 24.
61% of all marriages in the last 10 years have ended in divorce.

Those are some pretty alarming figures, really. If the average person (and I do mean right around 70%) were not completely and utterly moronic, than we might be able to live and let live. But right now, we are ruled (quiet literally if you consider our government) but incompitent morons.

Thus, I introduce you to a theory I've had for a long, long time. It reads simply this:
"Almost every single problem we encounter in day to day live could be solved if 70% of people, world wide, just dropped dead or disappeared."

And it's true. There'd be less demand on resources, less demand for grunt labor to make civilized life possible, little to no war, less polution, and a much more peaceful happy existance for our remaining 30%.

Now, tragically I take this theory I made and hold it as a personal hope towards some of the more currupt industries and people who are out there, like the Medical Industry, the Oil Companies, Pedophiles, and even the average egotistical dirt bags. If people like that could compose the 70%, then the remaining people of the world would be able to make life perfect for themselves and their offspring.

Basically the theory is cold hearted in the sense that we no longer try to clean the curruption of man kind through the means of changing each individual, but rather by whiping out the majority.
_________________

Ah, Signature Changes...