Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

General Discussion

garybeck

(10,086 posts) Tue Mar 5, 2013, 01:25 PM Mar 2013

Porn and Prostitution [View all]

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).

28 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Porn and Prostitution [View all] garybeck Mar 2013 OP

The 'actor' is not doing the paying? onehandle Mar 2013 #1

If I understand correctly, a number of actors have started their own production companies. hughee99 Mar 2013 #8

No, it doesn't really make sense at all. EOTE Mar 2013 #2

Wow, a comparison that's never been made before! alcibiades_mystery Mar 2013 #3

wow thanks for your nice response! garybeck Mar 2013 #5

A legal distinction so dumb that even college stoners understand just how dumb it is. nt dairydog91 Mar 2013 #16

I look forward to this thread Capt. Obvious Mar 2013 #4

...snarf... alcibiades_mystery Mar 2013 #7

Why focus on porn? How about mainstream film? cthulu2016 Mar 2013 #6

Simply because payments made outside the mainstream economy often entrap people. randome Mar 2013 #9

It's the principle of free emission kenny blankenship Mar 2013 #10

Nothing this puritannical country does about sex makes any sense Warpy Mar 2013 #11

I am guessing that it probably has something to do with the intention arcane1 Mar 2013 #12

Is it the second week of the month already? bluedigger Mar 2013 #13

We shouldn't have to play legal games like that in the first place. Both should be legal. Kurska Mar 2013 #14

If they can't tax the transaction then, it's illegal.... socialindependocrat Mar 2013 #15

doesn't make sense jollyreaper2112 Mar 2013 #17

The publication/distribution is the difference. That gives porn protection under the 1st Amendment. Egalitarian Thug Mar 2013 #18

I seriously doubt that they could establish a right to work in a certain profession. dairydog91 Mar 2013 #21

Not that it will happen, but never underestimate the power of lots of money in this system. Egalitarian Thug Mar 2013 #24

It's only bad if you enjoy it. bemildred Mar 2013 #19

Good question. sibelian Mar 2013 #20

There are various regulations covering the production of pornography, Recovered Repug Mar 2013 #22

Simple. Iggo Mar 2013 #23

When you try to legislate morality this is what you get madokie Mar 2013 #25

Loophole. Arguably, making a movie falls under Free Speech Motown_Johnny Mar 2013 #26

The difference is one pays for pleasure, the other pays for future profit. Kablooie Mar 2013 #27

I've wondered the same. I guess "art" makes the difference. WinkyDink Mar 2013 #28