RE: Legislation... what's the difference between prostitution and porn?

JAStewart

Graduate Poster
JAStewart
Joined
Nov 5, 2006
Messages
1,521
RE: Legislation... what's the difference between prostitution and porn?

Can someone clarify this for me... maybe I have confused myself.

Porn is sex for money on camera
Prostitution is sex for money.

Why does (some) countries allow porn but not prostitution? What is the justification?
 
JAStewart said:
Can someone clarify this for me... maybe I have confused myself.

Porn is sex for money on camera
Prostitution is sex for money.

Why does (some) countries allow porn but not prostitution? What is the justification?
Click to expand...

Jesus usually.

(I never got it either.)
 
Last edited:
Michael Redman said:
It might be. I don't know how statutes and case law differentiate it. It may have something to do with who is paying who.
Click to expand...

So what if friend 1 pays for friend 2's prostitute and friend 2 pays for friend 1's prostitute. Would that be legal?

I'm not saying you are legally wrong. In fact, I'm willing to bet you are right. I'm just saying the whole thing isn't based on logic.
 
Michael Redman said:
It might be. I don't know how statutes and case law differentiate it. It may have something to do with who is paying who.
Click to expand...

No, it is about if something is art. Some porn or at least some sexualy explicit material is art. So it is hard to say when it isn't art.

Now if you hired someone to have sex for you on camera, you would probably be ok. But keep in mind that you might well need to get records and various other paperwork for this, as you are a producer.

Now a business with some models that people can go to and have their own porn shot with them and these models, it might be legal.
 
JAStewart said:
Can someone clarify this for me... maybe I have confused myself.

Porn is sex for money on camera
Prostitution is sex for money.

Why does (some) countries allow porn but not prostitution? What is the justification?
Click to expand...


For a more serious answer under US law:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_v._Freeman

The UK is more complex since prostitution is not actualy illegal while it is posible that large amounts of pornography is unlawfil.
 
It's time for this:



On a related note: since decency laws have been determined to be dependent on community standards, you've got a weird situation here in St. Louis. On the Illinois side of the river, nudity is legal (strip clubs and such), but not on the Missouri side. Yet most of the money spent on the Illinois side comes from Missouri residents. (At the very least, it's possible to prove that this industry would fail but for the money spent by Missouri residents.) So how can Missouri logically argue that it's against our community standards?
 
KingMerv00 said:
So what if friend 1 pays for friend 2's prostitute and friend 2 pays for friend 1's prostitute. Would that be legal?
Click to expand...
The prostitution itself is illegal, but unless you're stupid enough to film money being exchanged impossible to prove.

But the filming is perfectly legal, assuming all parties consented to it.
 
WildCat said:
The prostitution itself is illegal, but unless you're stupid enough to film money being exchanged impossible to prove.

But the filming is perfectly legal, assuming all parties consented to it.
Click to expand...

Are we really naive enough to think that porn stars are not being paid?
 
KingMerv00 said:
Are we really naive enough to think that porn stars are not being paid?
Click to expand...

Also, since rules against child-porn require them to keep records of proof of age and such, I don't think it would at all be difficult for law enforcement to find evidence of money changing hands.

I think the laws are simply inconsistent.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom