Mary and Mike

What are the differences?

Why is it legal for a company to film people having sex together and paying them for it, but it is illegal for a woman to sell her own body for sex and money?

I know the porn industry is monitored, and they have them take health exams and such, but why can't they do that same thing for prostitutes?

I live in Nevada right now and it is legal here. Why can't any prostitute just go to the local county health depeartment and be tested the same way the porn stars are tested and be given a piece of paper declaring her to be in good health with no STD's or drug use. If a woman is out on the streets and she doesn't have the proper documentation then she can be arrested for failure to follow the law.

I never grasped the, it's legal to have sex and it's legal to give someone money, but it is illegal to do both at the same time.

Mary

Eleutheria

I suppose because pornography carries a less bad kind of connotation than prostitution. Consulting the Webster dictionary, prostitution means an instance of offering or devoting one’s talent to an unworthy use or cause. Pornography is sexually explicit pictures, writing, or other material whose primary purpose is to cause sexual arousal.

Indeed, prostitution has been frowned upon, both historically and internationally. The unique character of the pornography is that it has superseded all dictates of subjective repugnance, in that the US government and, quite inevitably the constitution, have yet to subdue the globalization of pornography. Here actors are protected by the 1st amendment of the constitution. Since a prostitute’s street transaction doesn’t square with the freedom of speech/press, it has very little protection and attention.

christ-on-a-stick

Hey Mary and Mike,

You might be interested in reading the first 3-4 pages of the "Porn Expose on Dateline" thread in this same forum.

FWIW, I have always found it silly as well that one is legal and the other is not, and strongly favor legalization and regulation of prostitution such as you have there in Nevada (and is the case in many other parts of the world).

In my opinion the only real differentiation applies in the technical aspects of who is the "consumer" in relation to the person having sex for money (i.e. in prostitution the consumer is also the payor, while in pornography the consumer is not directly involved in an exchange of money with the person having sex.

In addition it is notable that there are many types of what is considered "pornography" that do not involve having sex with another person, so a distinction can easily be drawn in those cases.

For me, the bottom line is that both activities, semantics aside, involve an individual using their sexuality for monetary gain and I for one am cool with that. As long as people are making free and informed choices (and that caveat right there can lead to a pretty convoluted debate as you can see from that other thread!), my main concern is safety and health of all participants in both professions.

tronvillain

While there is a difference between pornography and prostituation, that does not mean I consider one inherently better than the other or that I think one should be legal while the other should not.

Psycho Economist

My guess: the middlemen.

Loren Pechtel

Originally posted by Mary and Mike
What are the differences?

Why is it legal for a company to film people having sex together and paying them for it, but it is illegal for a woman to sell her own body for sex and money?

Because the law is an ass. Both should be legal.

I know the porn industry is monitored, and they have them take health exams and such, but why can't they do that same thing for prostitutes?

Here we do. Amongst the legal prostitutes the disease risk is pretty darn close to zero. Well below what you would face in a singles bar.

I live in Nevada right now and it is legal here. Why can't any prostitute just go to the local county health depeartment and be tested the same way the porn stars are tested and be given a piece of paper declaring her to be in good health with no STD's or drug use. If a woman is out on the streets and she doesn't have the proper documentation then she can be arrested for failure to follow the law.

I wouldn't permit streetwalkers in the first place--they do cause problems for the neighborhood. Brothels and outcall only would be how I would make the law. Also, I would make the prostitutes get a license--pass a test on the law and get a clean bill of health, frequent checkups to keep the license current. Don't rely on a show-papers enforcement.
All licenses should have an ID number on them, there would be a website where you could type in the ID# and find out if the license was current, as well as a good-quality picture (and notes of any identifying features the picture didn't show) of the person to whom the license was issued so you could confirm it wasn't stolen/altered. Neither the license nor the website would have more than a stage name, though.

I never grasped the, it's legal to have sex and it's legal to give someone money, but it is illegal to do both at the same time.

Prostitution is *SIN*, that's why!

99Percent

The difference is that the money paid for porn actors is for them "performing", ie, there is no relevancy whether there is any actual sexual pleasure involved. The actors may or may not actually enjoy the sexual act and its beside the point anyway. They are merely performing an act.

OTOH, prostitution implies that someone is actually paying in exchange for sexual pleasure, a big taboo in our societies for mostly religious reasons I think.

99Percent

There are middlemen in both professions (porn acting and prostitution).

lunachick

You might find this link interesting: New Zealand Prostitutes Collective.

Psycho Economist

First of all, I was being a little facitious. But in a vain effort to try and sorta defend what I meant:

Right, prostitution has pimps... But porn has make-up people, photographers, publishers, printers and distributors. 'spectable bizzissmen.

Additionally, the end customer neither pays the participants directly nor has sex with them himself (at least those were true before the Internet, anyway). I imagine what is paid to the people who are filmed / photographed has historically been independent of how many people purchased the finished product.