I always asked myself that i mean they not only have sex for money but let people sell it too.That seems to be worse..I guess theres a legal loophole with them saying its acting and a movie.ISnt america great.
Pornstars VS Prostitutes?
- Thread starter Alyssa Rose
- Start date
I always asked myself that i mean they not only have sex for money but let people sell it too.That seems to be worse..I guess theres a legal loophole with them saying its acting and a movie.ISnt america great.
Rey C.
Racing is life... anything else is just waiting.
Whether it's true or not, I'm not sure. But someone claiming to be an attorney wrote on here that it is not legal (in California?) for the person performing in the sex scene to be the same person who pays the performers.
I understand where you're coming from, and that you're just explaining the legal basis. But it makes no sense. If I paint or take photos (non nude, let's say), I can be in the picture or the photo. Woody Allen and Spike Lee act in all their movies (though I wish they wouldn't). I'm not aware of any prohibition which prevents them from paying the actors out of their own pockets at the end of each day. So if the law recognizes porn as art, why are there special prohibitions on how the talent is paid (if that person knew what he was talking about)?
I'm not pro prostitution, but on most social issues I have a libertarian view: what consenting people do is their own business. Same with pot. I don't smoke it. And I don't allow it in my house if I have a party. But those are my rules for my property. If someone wants to smoke a dried plant that they grew in their back yard, what do I care... and why should the government care? If a girl and a guy agree that she'll sleep with him if he gives her $X, why should the government be involved in that? What if she goes out with him and he buys her a $200 bracelet or a $200 dinner? What about the 20 something year old girl dating or married to the 50-60 something year old wealthy man? Aren't those girls (legally) hookers? Shouldn't the government also be looking into that... especially when the guy leaves his wife of 20+ years for this trophy wife/fling? I mean, at least when it's "dating", the relationship is based totally on a financial arrangement, right?
I'm not throwing these questions at you. But to me, it makes no sense, except to the morality police, Moral Majority types. And IMO, Senator John Ensign is the biggest hypocrite in the U.S. right now. That bible thumper went after other people on moral issues, while he had a (taxpayer) funded mistress on his staff - she was (by definition) a hooker, right? When she stopped sleeping with him, he stopped paying her (and her whole flippin' family). If he'd paid her with his own money, like Spitzer (supposedly) did, that's his business, IMO. But I still don't understand the logic behind how porn is viewed versus how prostitution is viewed in the U.S.
There's no difference at all between prostitutes and porn stars. Porn stars are nothing more than video prostitutes. Porn stars who provide escorting services [ :1orglaugh] use the medium for more exposure to charge more $$$ when trolling for customers or vice versa. They all will fuck for money. . . but at what price?
That's so true.
Some pornstars do escort, work at strip clubs etc.
They are basically the same. If you cant see otherwise you need glasses.
The difference that I see is that in the case of a prostitute she is getting paid by the customer for sexual favors. In the case of a pornstar both her and her partner are getting paid by a third party for sexual performance. :2 cents:
Its not always a 3rd party.Max Hardcore appeared in his own productions and I don't think that he was prosecuted for that.Same can be said for Rodney Moore ,he owns his production company and usually is the male performer in his movies as well.I'm telling yas porn is art lol and is protected by the 1st amendment,thats what courts have said.
Hypocrisy/Self Righteousness.
Ridiculous that resources are wasted on trying to stop prostittution.
It is OK for prostitutes! As long as they have freely chosen to be a prostitute & as long as they keep their earnings rather than give it to a pimp.
I think a production company counts as a third party. If John Doe pays to have sex, that's prostitution. If John Doe Productions pays both John Doe and Jane Doe to have sex in front of a camera, that's porn.
Don't think so bud.It would be very hard for Rodney Moore to try to argue that Rodney moore productions was not him.And think about this as well in the case of prostitutes,in the case of girls who have pimps it's the pimp who gets paid and sometimes doesn't share much with the girl or doesn't share at all.Its still prostitution and all parties could be charged.
Beleive me porn is considered art and is protected and that is the difference legally.
OK, I understand your point about it being considered art. Fair enough.
In the case of a pimp, though, it's the John that pays the pimp, not the other way around. In the case of Rodney Moore, legally Rodney Moore and Rodney Moore are 2 separate entities: one is a private citizen and the other is a privately owned business. But, alas, I'm no legal expert, and I'll have to take your word for it. :hatsoff:
Because pornstars are on cam.
Both should be legal... it's the same thing really.
It would seem to me that there is a very important difference.
In the case of prostitution someone is paying for sex.
In the case of porn no one is paying for sex--the most anyone is paying for is to watch others have sex. Presumably everyone having sex is being paid in the case of porn--not so for prostitution.
If some of the porn stars in a given show were in fact paying, rather than being paid, to have sex--then I would consider that a form of prostitution.
That said--I don't have a moral issue with either porn or prostitution. But I can certainly see that they are very different things such that others might classify them differently morally.
Rey C.
Racing is life... anything else is just waiting.
A guy pays a girl to have sex with his nephew (let's say) - the nephew doesn't pay anything. The uncle never touches her. He doesn't even want to watch. He's still guilty of solicitation if he's caught.
A guy pays a girl to have sex with his nephew (let's say) - the nephew doesn't pay anything. The uncle never touches her. He doesn't even want to watch. He's still guilty of solicitation if he's caught.
In this case though the girl ordinarily works as a prostitute and this is a typical prostitution transaction except that the uncle is paying the nephew's bill. The uncle and nephew have an ongoing connection as uncle and nephew and the girl is clearly the only one being hired in this situation. The nephew isn't paying but the nephew clearly hasn't been hired here either.
However imagine a jurisdiction where incest is legal but prostitution is illegal. (eg some European countries). Someone hires a 38 year girl and her 19 year old son and pays them to have sex. This wouldn't be an act of prostitution since both are being hired.
Similar threads
- Question
