Serious question, this came up between myself and a co-worker tonight. In pornography, a woman is paid to have sex with a guy on camera with the intent that the act be recorded for distribution for others to view. In prostitution, a woman is paid to have sex with a guy. Where is the line drawn as far as the legal system is concerned?
I hope someone knows and can provide a valid response, quite honestly, the line seems pretty fuzzy and could go either way.

 

What an awsome thought well done you id never thought about it. Needs some research.

 

in porn both are paid? the guy and the girl

 

Pornography is technically a performance created for a third party who will have no participation in the sexual act directly. There no direct solicitation by the performers of the consumer.

 

I would say the first difference is that a working girl gets paid for sex only where as a porn actor gets paid for making a film.

 

I did some research on line and I did find that statement, but it seems that even lawyers and public question the validity of the reasoning. What it seems to boil down to is that the film itself is protected by the first amendment, but technically both actors could in fact be charged with prostitution. The more I read the fuzzier the line seems to get...

 

The answer is in your question.
What makes pornography legal is the fact that it's recorded and meant for entertainment.
I once saw a video from... I think it was Ron Jeremy, and he said that it was the camera that made it legal. Just like boxing and racing cars, they're both illegal out on the streets; but you put a camera in front of it, control the settings and call it entertainment, then it's legal.
That's actually how he won a court case against him for prostitution (when it was actually pornography) and I think it made porn legal nationwide... or something like that. But basically he (and the industry) won a court case because of the difference...

 

Dalia, I agree, but I wouldn't test your theory in a red state

Porn starlets are LIKE prostitutes, but they might collect royalties

I could never be a male porn star; I already have performance anxieties hah. I can barely pee in front of other men, much less cum on-demand with a crew watching. Men can't fake it either. I think this is why half the money shots show a cut in the video right before he cums. For all we know, he took 15 minutes to do that facial.

 

I live in a red state and damn it if they ever take away my beloved porn!!! *throws fist in the air*

 

HAH no I meant making porn Running a studio might be complicated.

 

Actually, it has NOTHING to do with a legal line or precident, yet what those in power, prosecutors and politicians wish to pursue to suit their own ends at that moment......Believe me, if someone really gets a hard on for it they will charge the actors/actresses with prostitution, more so federally due to the porn crossing state lines.....In contrast if an escort and you advertise with nude photos, they may try to nail you with distribution of pornography as well.

Hush.....an alias

p.s.....You'd be stunned at the number of escorts that would be picked up by cops, prosecuted by D.A.'s, standing before a judge, and encouraged to clean things up by the politicians that the escort currently services all of them....It's funny how when push comes to shove they all back down when they might be dragged into it.

As it worked for me

 

This was the only thing I could find that gives any clarity to the laws governing porn vs prostitution...

The significance of the sexual act: legal consequences can follow from it and it can, accordingly, be regulated by the law in a variety of ways. Though two people may very much want to have sex with each other in private, the law can intervene to say that they cannot, just because one of them seeks money and the other gratification, for example. (I find this a little odd, show me any guy that is blowing his nut in porn that is not happy as hell to be enjoying his sexual gratification)

If, however, both members of the couple are in it for the money, and there is a man with a camera taping them so that millions of people can buy or rent the tape and masturbate to it, then the sex is insulated by the Constitution from legal regulation.

 

Okay, now that we have that out of the way...turn on the lights, roll the cameras and let's fuck.

 

It's all about the money. Porn distributors are taxed, porn actors are taxed, websites and DVDs are taxed. Escorts aren't taxed making it illegal. Same with drugs. If the USA could tax all the weed sells, it wouldn't be illegal.

 

Kimiko, I am with you all the way. My GF is coming over Friday, I cannot wait for her to get here, guess I had better go work one out while I wait.

 

Unfortunatly, this is far from the truth. For whatever reason the federal government seems to have no interest in the taxation of naturally occurring drugs. I firmly believe that it is the pharmaceutical companies and their "special interest dollars" that keep weed and other drugs illegal. The thought that individuals could actually manage their own pain without spending billions of dollars annually is too much for them to bear. It is all corporate greed, plain and simple.

 

Not until we have agreed the fee!

Thinskin