Katja Kassin

The true "clients" in porn are the fans, not the guy paying the girl for the scene. How do you explain someone like Nicole Sheridan when she's doing a scene with Voodoo (her husband)? Charlie is another girl who only performed with her boyfriends or husband (except for girls). These girls are getting paid for a performance. Also, images of sexuality have been used as art for centuries. As far as the "fan-gangbangs" go, I don't believe the fans had to pay the girls to be a part of it. Yes, there are girls who cross this line like Sunset Thomas (HBO's Cathouse). I don't believe that prostitution should be illegal. I think it's person's right to choose how they use there own body. There are way too many prudes in this world, and unfortunatly the laws reflect this! We are forced to live by somebody elses opinion of what is wrong and what is right.

I mostly just question someone's motivation for trying to make these girls feel like hookers.

[Link]

Selling your body is a-ok, but one type of whore looking down on another form of whoring as "immoral" is the worst form of hypocrisy.

[Link]

Edited by - katjakassin on 10/15/2005 2:05:12 PM

[Link]

It was a pleasure to meet you in Seattle last weekend. Thanks for recommending "Camel Hoes" and "Crack Addict", I enjoyed both scenes tremendously!

Don't put too much stock into what a few "thick-headed" people think of your profession. Most of the people here are open-minded and won't judge you.

Keep up the good work!

[Link]

Prostitution is illegal, of course I see it as an insult.

[Link]

Edited by - Twizted6 on 10/15/2005 4:09:18 PM

[Link]

Terms are not facts, they have cultural as well as factual meaning. The term "hooker" is, like the term "criminal", one that culturally has very negative associations. That a pornstar is offended by being labelled a hooker is thus very understandable, even it is semantically correct. It's also very understandable that you wouldn't like to be labelled a criminal even if you've got a speeding ticket, or be labelled a beggar if you collect money for the Red Cross.

But since you seem to relate to only the factual meaning of terms, and surely have broken the law on some occasion, it's ok if I refer to you as "the criminal"? If not, you claim moral superiority over a group of which you technically belong, and you are consequently by your own definition a hypocrite. So which one will it be?

Edited by - Dither on 10/15/2005 6:45:42 PM

[Link]

You say you want to deal with facts? I'll admit that factually, porn stars AND hookers both get paid for performing sex.
I know you don't want to admit it, but a LOT of personal emotions come into both of these activities, and a person's boundaries are exactly that - personal. Personal choices.

I'm not sure that all of us are having a discussion here about whether prostitution is immoral or not.
For some of us, the fact that it's illegal in the majority of the United States is enough reason to not have any desire to want to do it.

For some girls, the fact that a man would want to fuck them so badly (perhaps in the girl's mind, she sees it as the man being desperate) that he'd willingly pay her for sex which will never make him money or further a business, it's just not a turnon.
It can be different things for a girl to be flattered knowing that a guy enjoys watching her scenes, but be uncomfortable if he comes up to her and says, hey I want to fuck you - how much?

If you don't understand that these things are very personal, then that's your problem, not ours.
Is the camera an excuse? In some cases, yes.
But bottom line is - if a girl says that calling her something offends her and you keep calling her that, you're just being plain rude.

[Link]

bumlover,

Tricia's assessment of your behavior is very tactful. I'd say that you're being a sadistic and abusive bully.

[Link]

Working in porn should preclude anyone from taking the moral high ground over other forms of prostitution. Some performers who read this forum do hook on the side, whether in the Nevada brothels or via other means. Such hypocritical attitudes are insulting to them. How does arguing with that make me the rude one?

[Link]

Considering your condescending tone here perhaps you should just excise the "lover" portion of your nom de plume.


SHYLOCK
"Patron of the Tarts"
Spieglergirls.com

[Link]

I can understand your ignorance of American jurisprudence seeing that you are from Manchester, England.

However, should you wish to educate yourself regarding Prostitution and the applicable laws as they relate to Pornographic film making here in the U.S., you might want to read the following UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT decision: CALIFORNIA v. FREEMAN .

SHYLOCK
"Patron of the Tarts"
Spieglergirls.com

[Link]

Please keep the posts to the topic without maing personal jabs.

Thanks.

[Link]

Is not.
Is too.
Is not.
Is too.
Is not.

etc.

[Link]

Considering the ad hominem attacks, insinuations and outright name calling made by the Right Honorable bumlover I believe that my replies were firmly within the bounds of ROBERT'S RULES OF ORDER.

However, in deference to you DD, I shall abstain from further comment on this issue.


Respectfully,

SHYLOCK
"Patron of the Tarts"
Spieglergirls.com

[Link]

Please don't nitpick each and every point by each and every poster. It gets tiresome.

[Link]

Edited by - Twizted6 on 10/16/2005 10:58:02 PM

[Link]

Here are some more definitions of "prostitute", taken from various people in various societies in various places around the globe. Any women who does these things is a prostitute, because someone defined these things as prostitution! It's reassuring to know that women can be punished for violating these rules that define what a prostitute is. Well, all except the first definition, which came from my grandmother.

A prostitute is:

Any woman who wears lipstick. Lipstick makes the lips red and simulates sexual arousal. It is a way to arouse men and make them feel attracted to you. Prostitutes try to arouse men and make them feel attracted to the prostitute. There's no moral difference between wearing lipstick and being a prostitute. They are the same thing.

Any woman who wears a dress that shows her legs. Same as above. They're morally equivalent.

Any woman who allows herself to be alone with a man who isn't her husband. The woman is trying to tempt the man into immoral behavior. Prostitutes try to tempt men into immoral behavior. They're morally equivalent.

Any woman who kisses a man who isn't her husband. Same as above.

Any woman who has sex with a man who isn't her husband. The woman is succeeding in tempting men into immoral behavior, just like prostitutes. Morally equivalent.

Any female novelist who writes a novel describing love between people who aren't married to each other. Obviously, she's trying to tempt people into immoral behavior by imflaming their passions with her lascivious descriptions. And she's making money doing it, just like a prostitute. Morally equivalent.

And let me reiterate that I'm not making any of this up. These are real definitions of prostitution used by some group of people somewhere in the world. And they're every bit as valid and "real" as bumlover's definition. Or anybody else's definition.

Sarcasm aside, all models sell their bodies. The people who hire them aren't buying their typing skills or their intellegence or their ability to sell products. They're buying bodies so that they can display them. And they're buying bodies that men will find sexually attractive. Whether you define this as prostitution or not is a matter of social convention. Whether you find it moral or not is also a matter of social convention. A large part of the world's population finds it immoral.

In this country, a woman who is defined as a prostitute can be imprisoned. In other countries, a woman who is defined as a prostitute can be killed. The definition of prostitution is completely arbitrary, but it has enormous practical consequences. That means that calling someone a prostitute is a morally charged act. If someone is hurt because of what you call them, you've done something immoral.

What's the difference between selling alcohol and selling opium to anyone over the age of 21? In either case, you're selling an addictive substance that ruins lives, and you're doing it solely for money. Following your logic, isn't it hypocritical for liquor store owners not to admit that they are drug dealers?

[Link]

here my arguments why porn is not prostitution:

- payment by third party
- paycheck is made out by a legal company
- taxes are being with held
- actors perform sex with professional co-workers
- primary interest is to film a movie
- satisfaction of sexual needs of the involved is secondary or does not matter at all
- whole act is a set up, acting often is involved, actors are hired to play a movie role
- actors sign a model release which is an agreement between the actor and the primary producer
- involved actors don't have any kind of contract with each other
- actors that work with each other don't negotiate the price or rate for the particular movie scene with each other
- each actor's payment is discussed and agreed upon with the primary producer of the movie

Porn and prostitution have something in common (if you want to put it that way): sex and money are involved but you have to ask:

- who has sex with each other (porn=> professional actors, Prostitution=> hooker and client)
- where does the money come from (porn=> third party, hooker=> sex partner)

There is clearly a hirachy in the constallation between hooker and "client" but not between two professional actors. Actors are being treated the same, they both get paid by the same third party person, they both have the same boss that tells them how to do the job. One actor has no decision about the other actor's performance. But for a prostitute the client gives orders to her directly.

Prostitution:
the one that gets paid for sex receives orders from the one that pays

Porn:
two people that have sex with each other receive both orders from a third party person who pays both actors

In my eyes there are way more differences than things in common.

Bumlover: If your opinion in GENERAL is that prostitution and porn are the same thing, then we disagree which I have no problem with but don't call me something that I don't want to be called. I, Katja, as a PERSON don't want anyone to call me a prostitute.
I DO have arguments, I want you to acklownledge this please - at least even if you disagree.
I don't acept your way saying: she's a hooker whatever she says. I have a different opion I want you to respect my way of thinking like I respect yours.

Edited by - katjakassin on 10/17/2005 12:14:45 AM

[Link]

Edited by - Twizted6 on 10/17/2005 3:16:34 PM

[Link]

-PornoPunK

[Link]

Also, if pornstars are hookers, then the production companies are pimps, and you my friend, are in principle a john. Buying movies, you are a customer of their services. The transaction doesn't happen at a street corner, but hey, - they sell, you buy. ;)

Edited by - Dither on 10/17/2005 1:49:36 AM

[Link]

Shylock: The irony of your accusation of ad-hominem attacks is delicious.

Twizted6: Although many laws have a moral basis, they can't be relied upon for personal morality - morality transcends law. Law on this varies even within the boundaries of the USA. Something morally unacceptable doesn't suddenly become acceptable when you walk across a county line, or when a new statute comes into force. I think legality is a red herring in this debate, as I don't believe either Melissa or Katja meant to say that they'd be ok with working at the Bunny Ranch.

Regarding opinions, yes we're all entitled to our own. With that comes the right to express and defend them. How does doing that constitute "forcing" anything on anyone? Also, not everything is a matter of opinion, there are constants. If someone says that down is up and left is right it's not an opinion as valid as any other, they're simply mistaken.

Postkontor: Blah, whatever. My cat's breath smells of cat food.

Katja: None of the things in your list of differences make it not prostitution, they merely distinguish it from street-hooking, a different form of prostitution. The two things you admit are in common - sex and money - are the two fundamental elements of a prostitution arrangement.

Twizted6: Did you really have to quote Postkontor's entire gibberish post just to state your bizarre conclusion that it was my sock-puppet?

skronker: One can never have too much bum to love.

skronker: Plenty of prostitutes make a legal living as such, so that doesn't distinguish it from porn. I'm not just harping on a definition, I've been trying to demonstrate that it's also indistinguishable in the key ethical aspects.

Dither: If you think moral equivalence is entirely in the eye of the beholder, then you're a believer in moral relativism. An example of where that leads: Is it wrong for adulterous women in Islamic states to be stoned to death? ...Only from our moderate Western viewpoint.

cross: Do you always prefer to have people silenced if you can't answer their arguments?

Katja: Thank you, I'm glad we can agree on something.

Finally, it just occured to me that porn stars being at such pains to deny this rather obvious fact brings in the issue of informed consent. If someone is so adverse to the notion of being a prostitute that they have to invent these artificial distinctions to exempt themselves, should they be performing in porn at all? The realization may come to them eventually and the psychological consequences could be unfortunate.

Edited out of courtesy to spell Katja's name correctly.

Edited by - bumlover on 10/17/2005 2:20:54 AM

[Link]

Edited by - katjakassin on 10/17/2005 2:10:27 AM

[Link]