Is there a difference between pornography and prostitution?

I came across an interesting discussion the other day, comparing the differences between prostitution and the filming of pornography, as both are essentially cash exchanges for sexual activity, yet they carry differing penalties, as far as the law goes.

Then, I came across this article that goes into it a little further: http://www.cnn.com/2005/LAW/08/12/colb.pornography/index.html

Quote:

Most of us typically think of prostitution as involving a customer who pays a prostitute for providing sexual services. We intuit that pornography, by contrast, involves a customer paying an actor for providing sexual services to another actor.

In other words, prostitution is generally understood as the bilateral trading of sex for money, while pornography involves the customer of an adult film paying money to watch other people have sex with each other, while receiving no sexual favors himself in return.

Quote:

New York Penal Law defines a prostitute as a person "who engages or agrees or offers to engage in sexual conduct with another person in return for a fee." A pornographic actor does just that: Like a more typical prostitute, he or she engages in sex in return for a fee.

So, what are your feelings on this?

Is it separate enough to be legally different, to the extent that one party is charged for a crime while the other is ok?

I'd say there is huge difference between me paying to view some busty broad get banged on dvd, versus me hiring some nasty hooker to tug on my tallywhacker.

But yeah, for the actual porn actors, I guess they are having sex for money, so they are prostitutes. So, their "Johns" would be the moviemakers I guess, and not the customers paying to see the movie.

I don't know, it's a tough call.

hey WTF? prostitution and pornography are legal.


btw: we're living in a free europe...

Quote:

Originally posted by hornithologist

I'd say there is huge difference between me paying to view some busty broad get banged on dvd, versus me hiring some nasty hooker to tug on my tallywhacker.

He's not saying that the customer of pornography is involved in any type of prostitution, just the actors being paid for having sex with eachother.

This is very interesting and I've actually thought of it myself before. I think it's the same. Just like the NY state law and definition of porn says. I don't see how you could argue that because that's exactly what these actors are doing. On the other hand, maybe other states break the definition down a little further like prostitution is a person who engages in sexual conduct in return for a fee from the person receiving the sexual conduct. If it was something like that then I'd say there was a difference.

There are also the sites where they get the prostitutes (at least I hope they are prostitutes and not people pretending to be prostitutes) and then film their story and then have sex with them, that is a bit of both? Also, how about the documentaries on HBO about prostitutes, where the women get money for being on the show, and have sex with their Johns....

Quote:

Originally posted by Muad-dib

btw: we're living in a free europe...

oh yeah ... try paying for a hooker in Norway, while the police are watching. You'll be looking at a bunch of dudes with hairy balls instead of your beloved hairy pussies. Until you make bail anyway.

Quote:

Originally posted by hornithologist

...

oh yeah ... try paying for a hooker in Norway, while the police are watching.

yeeaaahhhh... scandinavia is another case. to cold over there... you're right!!
but here in the netherlands, germany, austria, czech republik it's legal.

I personally don't think there is a difference, regardless of how any state statute is written. Both acts ultimately involve individuals engaging in sexual activity for payment. I think that it's irrelevant who is doing the paying and is considered the "customer," since it's the act of the person being paid that would be the relevant factor.

If you're going to make an exception based upon who the customer is, wouldn't that create other workarounds? Then you could just say that other viewers are the customers, videotape or take a couple pics of the act and bypass the prostitution charge.

I think it should all be legal... If people want to pay to have sex and people want to have sex for money, they should be able to. I don't think the government has any right to restrict what consenting adults want to do with their own bodies and in privacy.

I agree 100%
I'm just saying that with all the other bullshit our country regulates, I can see how something as little as writing a state statute can make it ok for one person but not for another. It's complete bs but that is the great country we live

Our government is ok with the porn industries version of prostitution because they're a huge part of coorporate america. They bring in billions of dollars where prostitutes/escorts whatever you wanna call them, only bring in money for themselves.

Quote:

Originally posted by tcobb36

If you're going to make an exception based upon who the customer is, wouldn't that create other workarounds? Then you could just say that other viewers are the customers, videotape or take a couple pics of the act and bypass the prostitution charge.

This is kind of an interesting point.

Like the example in the article in which she presents a hypothetical situation in which a grandfather pays a hooker for his grandson. Now, who gets charged with prostitution there? It's not like the kid paid for it; someone did on his behalf, which is basically the only distinction between porn actors and people who frequent prostitutes - that the payment comes from a third party and not the person actually receiving the sex...

...although I'm sure there are a lot of porn movies that are made in which the male "actor" is the producer, and is paying the girl as well, which is no different at all than what the NY statute defines.

*in best new york accent possible* Your honor, In a prostitutional situation only one of the participants is being paid for the sex act.

In the pornographical situation, your honor, both parties are being paid to perform full penetration ACTING scenes. While sex does seem to be occurring, your honor, it is just part of a script these actors and actresses are putting their hearts and souls into to make a good film.

So:
Prostitutes = Being paid for pure sexual gratification. Nothing more nothing less.

Porn actors/actresses = They're being paid to act, sex just happens to be part of the script.

lol, if I'm an actor in a movie that calls for me tor murder the CEO of a bank, can I murder the CEO of a bank, and just say that it was integral to the scene?

If both actors are willing participants, yes.

Quote:

Originally posted by Thamuz

I agree 100%
I'm just saying that with all the other bullshit our country regulates, I can see how something as little as writing a state statute can make it ok for one person but not for another. It's complete bs but that is the great country we live

Our government is ok with the porn industries version of prostitution because they're a huge part of coorporate america. They bring in billions of dollars where prostitutes/escorts whatever you wanna call them, only bring in money for themselves.

I guess the secret is for the prostitutes is to form a large corporation, give massive contributions to both parties and provide a taxable revenue for America's bankrupt government. Then things would change. Even the christian right can't ignore money