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

[JoeTheJuggler]

.
There isn't any, it's a bias based on religious belief. Porn isn't made in the open, whores can be found trolling for johns on Sierra Highway, next to the Sheriff's station. (Some of them -are- Sheriffs, as many sadly discover. )
And the righteous folk when they even notice the activity get their knickers twisted.
Porn is available in the video stores, behind what is in the Bible Belt termed the "Preacher Door", to separate that filth from the violence of the standard video product.
.

.
See above... the elusive "community standards". The preacher gave himself his own A, after Hester got hers publicly.
.

This is exactly right. The laws are not logically consistent.

 

[Beerina]

So far, the best attempts to explain the difference between porn and prostitution have been "porn stars may not get paid" and "porn does not involve physical contact".

Technically incorrect. I reiterate: "A lot more voters will be ticked off if you outlaw porn.


Any other explanations are sophistry."

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

Technically incorrect. I reiterate: "A lot more voters will be ticked off if you outlaw porn.


Any other explanations are sophistry."

Not really. Yours might be the best explanation for why inconsistent laws exist or why they won't be changed, but it doesn't explain the difference between porn and prostitution.

ETA: In other words, the point you're making is that the real issue isn't that the laws are logically consistent, only that the logical inconsistency is the result of popular sentiments (which are themselves irrational).

 

[I Ratant]

Technically incorrect. I reiterate: "A lot more voters will be ticked off if you outlaw porn.


Any other explanations are sophistry."

.
23rd Amendment for precedence.

 

[CORed]

Which is exactly what prostitution is...

Most of the time. every so often, they actually enjoy it.

 

[CORed]

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.

Well, let's see in prostitution, one of the participants in sex pays the other(s) for sex.

In pornography, all the participants are paid by the producer of the film/video or whatever.

That's a difference, though it doesn't really explain why one is illegal and the other isn't. For that matter, it makes absolutely no sense to me for either prostitution or pornography to be illegal, as long as all participants are consenting adults.

 

[joobz]

Well, let's see in prostitution, one of the participants in sex pays the other(s) for sex.

In pornography, all the participants are paid by the producer of the film/video or whatever.

That's a difference, though it doesn't really explain why one is illegal and the other isn't. For that matter, it makes absolutely no sense to me for either prostitution or pornography to be illegal, as long as all participants are consenting adults.

Similarly, it isn't illegal for a couple to pay a third party to have sex within a specified location, or provide guidance into how to have sex.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

Well, let's see in prostitution, one of the participants in sex pays the other(s) for sex.

In pornography, all the participants are paid by the producer of the film/video or whatever.

That's a difference, though it doesn't really explain why one is illegal and the other isn't. For that matter, it makes absolutely no sense to me for either prostitution or pornography to be illegal, as long as all participants are consenting adults.

So it's not prostitution if I buy a hooker for someone else? (Seriously, I could pay the "john" also--would that make it not be prostitution?)

ETA: What if the "john" pays a pimp rather than the actual service provider?

Again, I don't think you've defined any logical distinction--which is why you're also troubled by why one is legal and one isn't.

 

[CORed]

So it's not prostitution if I buy a hooker for someone else? (Seriously, I could pay the "john" also--would that make it not be prostitution?)

ETA: What if the "john" pays a pimp rather than the actual service provider?

Again, I don't think you've defined any logical distinction--which is why you're also troubled by why one is legal and one isn't.

I think your problem is that you are trying to find logic in pornography and prostitution laws. This is about as likely as finding ice in Death Valley in July.

 

[ponderingturtle]

Well, let's see in prostitution, one of the participants in sex pays the other(s) for sex.

In pornography, all the participants are paid by the producer of the film/video or whatever.

Who sometimes is one of the participants as well, and hence not being paid for being in it, but making money on the sale.

 

[Beerina]

Not really. Yours might be the best explanation for why inconsistent laws exist or why they won't be changed, but it doesn't explain the difference between porn and prostitution.

The question was asked in terms of legislation. This is the difference. The rest is just memetic exchanges between people who already have lost the battle.


One is legal and one is not. The reason is not because of some hairline difference, but because of the much greater popularity of porn among the voting public. Trying to find a technical distinction for porn that makes it meaningfully different from prostitution is a red herring.

 

[Beerina]

.
23rd Amendment for precedence.

??

 

[I Ratant]

Who sometimes is one of the participants as well, and hence not being paid for being in it, but making money on the sale.

.
Some of the videos are for private use, not for sale.

 

[I Ratant]

??

.
18th.. my bad.
Hic!

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

The question was asked in terms of legislation. This is the difference.

The question was asked about the logic of the laws. You gave a fine explanation of why illogical laws are in place. But the question really was about the inconsistency of the laws. (Re-read the OP if you doubt me.)

The rest is just memetic exchanges between people who already have lost the battle.

You want to bet?

These laws are in flux right now (prostitution is even legal in Nevada). I suspect in 50 years or 100 years the laws will be a lot more logically consistent.

 

[I Ratant]

The question was asked about the logic of the laws. You gave a fine explanation of why illogical laws are in place. But the question really was about the inconsistency of the laws. (Re-read the OP if you doubt me.)


You want to bet?

These laws are in flux right now (prostitution is even legal in Nevada). I suspect in 50 years or 100 years the laws will be a lot more logically consistent.

.
There's a chance that nature will have a clean slate.. highly radioactive, but sans the interference of humanity to try again on developing an intelligent species.