health is a top priority.

porn is generally legal whereas prostitution is generally not legal.

they have sex with many professionals around.

it is not sex with strangers.

Edited by - kataboom on 8/12/2005 11:42:45 AM

[Link]

Porn: A pays B for sex acts with C. The assumed purpose is the pleasure of the viewer, who isn't paying B or C or getting pleasure from sexual contact with them.

If you're going by the dictionary, then sure, it's prostitution. However, California has already established that it isn't prostitution in the legal sense.

[Link]

PS--Are main stream actors or actresses prostitutes??....there are many "real" movies with sex in them

[Link]

Come to think of it - I wonder why they don't.

[this isn't a question directed at you specifically - I'm just thinking out loud with the keyboard.]

[Link]

There may be other definitions, depending whether you look at it from a legal, technical, economical, moral or other moral point of view.
Whatever the case, my point of view, as I already mentioned elsewhere, is that we should treat porn stars like whores: with respect.

Sometimes it's better not to. That goes for abstaining, too.

[Link]

Edited by - hardware on 8/12/2005 1:36:09 PM

[Link]

Are they sex workers? IMHO: yes.

To me the "sex industry" is a general, generic term that icludes prostitutes, strippers, soft- and hard-core still photography, those who do those sex telephone calls, etc....and video porn women.

[Link]

Judge Hardware Holmes Investigates : coming soon to an imaginary screen near you !

[Link]

yes. and just like Vincent said, BOTH sexworkers deserve being treated with respect.

Respectful prostitutes always use condoms, unless they're nuts.
Most prostitutes stay anonymous.
A 'pornstar' trades some personal privacy for a more secure work environment and
the chance to start a career and make even more money (as a prostitute ;)).
both jobs have their advantages and disadvantages.
However neither is a good job for people who are prone to irresponsible behaviour
like having unprotected sex with strangers. (like these gay Hungarian hoppers or people
going out having russian roulette one-night stands making sure everyone has the latest
kinky pimple on their privates)

A glamour pornstar world versus the wretched world of prostitutes is about as much bullshit
as most hardcore gossip sites are respected journalism.

I agree with previous posters that this has been discussed ad nauseum,
just use the search function.

[Link]

the tenor of many posts is that people are sick of being 'labeled' no matter the word.
So singling out female performers as prostitutes doesn't exactly add to excitement ;)

Nevertheless, I am interested to bring my point of view across once someone comes up
with some statements worthy of discussion.

Edited by - chocolate_cougar on 8/12/2005 5:00:30 PM

[Link]

Anyway, yeah - I agree with Hardware and Rumpled. Porn stars are indeed sex workers, but the difference is that a prostitute accepts money from one person so that person may receive pleasure and the transaction ends there.

In porn, the sex workers are paid by the producer (who may indeed be the guy or girl who receives sexual pleasure from the porn performer), but the transaction does not end there... the sex act is captured on tape and used for the viewing sexual pleasure of others.

I wonder if there's been any recent rulings on live sex shows here in the US - kind of the same as a porn movie...?

Oh, and yes, there seem to be a lot of porn girls who are escorts. However, just because some do doesn't mean they all do, and some porn people are still offended by the porn insiders who take those kind of risks outside the industry.

[Link]

Furthermore, as someone whose handle claims they are doing research, I would think that thanks to chocolate_cougar for providing more background material would be the more appropriate response.

[Link]

I tend to think of most prostitutes and most porn stars as sex performers who enjoy their craft, care about their work but also see it as a way to make money -- much like I view my own career. If you call one of these performers a whore or prostitute in a strictly non-derogatory tone using it as a technical term to describe what they do, then I don't see a problem with those terms being used.

If they themselves use these terms to describe themselves (such as the wonderful Hillary did right above this post -- hope your healing continues to go well, cutie, and I wish you were "right above" me at this moment!) or call each other that during their sexual performances then they are using it in a non-derogatory and prideful tone to say that they are good at what they do -- being nasty and sexy for the pleasure of others.

I know I've stated the obvious but my point is that how the term is used is more important than what the term means in the most technical sense.

[Link]

A usual porn scene takes place. (the company pays the actor and actress money and they film them having sex.) After the scene, someone from the company receives sexual favor from the female performer for free with no filming because putting her in a movie works in her favor (escort premiums, etc.) Would that be ruled as prostitution?

[Link]

Hillary is one of my faves!! Keep on cumming babe!!

Luv You!!

MarMac

[Link]

The schemata Hardware (or the NY judge) provided is too narrow: the term "pleasure of the viewer," as infimum suggests in his first scenario, is too vague. Let's be more specific, and lets avoid all the straw reasoning.

Historically (which is very different from most porn made today), A and C, as well as B (the female talent), were also there as a paid performer--personal gratification was secondary or non-existent. In addition, everyone else (which could be a lot of people--cameraman, gaffer, screenwriter, lights, makeup, janitor, etc) were also there because they were paid employees. What was involved here was never a personal transaction between people, but a public production of a commercial product--in other words, the intention was to make a movie (this is the meaning of "pleasure of the viewer" more clearly qualified).

Secondly, the "sex" involved was never really sex at all, but a kind of explicit simulation (is you can fathom that) of a sex act--in other words, the performance of sex rather than actual private sexual activity. If you could see a sex scene made under the exacting conditions of 35mm film, you would grasp how artificial it really was--in video, a lot of this has disappeared, but the distinction is still important. But the key point here again is this: no one fucks and sucks in porn for personal pleasure, but for another purpose--to make a movie (or if they do--it is orgasms after all--it is strictly secondary to the making of the commercial product).

Lastly--and this is central to the old argument, and I vaguely recall being part of the Freeman defense that changed the legal definitions in CA--the product being made had artistic and entertainment values that justified the inclusion of explicit sexual acts (and paying the models/actors who performed them), but did not limit the value of the film as an artifact (here is where the answer to Tricia's question about the filming of public sex comes in, and why it probably would not qualify).

To make a long story short--its not prostitution if the purpose is not sexual gratification for those people involved--or if that gratification is incidental to some larger public, artistic, or commercial purpose (another example might be a documentary about sexual behavior, and so forth).

Of course in today's porn, these distinctions have largely disappeared--Joe Cock calls the porn agent, the girl comes over, he pays her and fucks her POV, and maybe uses the footage, maybe doesn't--and the pretension of some other purpose (which the use of the film medium helped to achieve) has shrunk to dimensions smaller than Ed Power's penis. And there are dangers there for the industry. But there you are.

And yes, the reason most porn is made in CA in the US is because the Freeman case changed the pandering laws in the state and allowed porn production in the state to avoid this type of legal harassment.

[Link]

This has been over discussed.

Female performers are no more prostitutes than the male performers. Nobody ever questions that side of it.

[Link]

A troll is a person that just posts to see what shit he/she can stir up. The intention is to get controversial subjects roiling and then sit back and let the fur fly.

[Link]

BTW--I'm a she.

I don't know if most straight women look at the males mainly, or the whole picture.
I find the female genetalia not fit for inspection at a range of 4"--unless you are a Gynecologist.
The male penis on the other hand is fascinating. It can do wonderful tricks--like:
Stand up straight pointing North--stand straight out pointing East--hang it's head in shame {when a producer is waiting}--be affected by anxiety, cold, boredom, lack of interest,fear, and other reasons. Comes in many sizes small-medium-large-extra large--and Percheron.Comes circumsized or not.
Like I said, fascinating.

PS: My favorite males are (so far):
Rocco Siffredi
Nacho Vidal
TT Boy
Evan Stone
Dale DaBone

Edited by - RN4Research on 8/13/2005 8:06:51 AM

[Link]

and, yes, I'm not quite sure how it's relevant to the topic, but what the hell.

[Link]

BTW, welcome aboard, RN4Research.

Edited by - juha on 8/13/2005 8:52:41 AM

[Link]

Sometimes it's better not to. That goes for abstaining, too.

[Link]

Over here both prostitution and making porn are legal (technically, brothels are only legal, not street prostitution) so it's easy to compare them legally. Prostition is way more regulated than porn, because prostitutes deal with the public, so they have to abide by all regular rules (yes, this country loves rules), labour laws, health & safety regs, hell, they can even join a labour union.
Porn is way less regulated over here, testing for STD's is voluntary like in the US, it's more selfregulated.

Both are classified in category 9305 'other services', together with dogtrimmers, tattoo parlours, babysitters, astrologers, contact agencies and everything else they couldn't fit somewhere else.

Jacco

[Link]

As an aside, if you just translate the origin of the word "prostitute" it is derived
from the Latin prostituere which means exposer en public ~ to expose publicly,
offer for sale. pretty basic eh?

I don't say the multitude of different legal definitions of prostitution as we have them today are wrong,
actually they maybe right in context of a big book titled Mr.Feebleminds Compendium of Laws,
for me however they are a huge pile of unnatural misanthropic bullshit.

To declare prostitution illegal per se is beyond a joke for a modern society.
In a way it stigmatizes ALL sex workers in and outside porn.

( ( (( Boooom LOVE zZZzz LOVE zZZzclapZzz LOOOOOOOOVE! )) ) )

[Link]

Is a woman who sells naked pics of her body on charity events technically a prostitute?
or does the altruistic goal justify the inclusion of explicit sexual acts?

The evil is not prostitution, but prejudice and laws based on their dogmas.
A prostitute, male or female, is not inferior to anybody in any other profession.
Sex workers should take pride in their jobs, but being outlawed in many countries,
they lack the protection and appreciation other workers have.

( ( (( Boooom LOVE zZZzz LOVE zZZzclapZzz LOOOOOOOOVE! )) ) )

[Link]

Sometimes it's better not to. That goes for abstaining, too.

[Link]