Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Have sex with strangers for money and get arrested. Have sex with strangers for money in front of a camera and sell the video, and it's legal.
Pay a stranger to have sex with you and go to jail. Pay a stranger to have sex with you in front of a camera and sell the video, and it's legal.
So we're effectively arresting people for not recording it and selling it, not for the actual act of sex with strangers for money. Why?
There's a difference between producing a movie for commerce (even if you're getting pleasure from it as the producer) and hiring someone for your own personal sexual pleasure.
There's a difference between producing a movie for commerce (even if you're getting pleasure from it as the producer) and hiring someone for your own personal sexual pleasure.
Ya, the difference is the fact that you filmed it and sold it. Should this be the deciding factor in whether it's legal? I thought prostitution was "wrong" because it's sex with strangers for money, not because it wasn't filmed and sold.
Should shooting heroin be legal only if it's filmed to be sold?
Should masturbation be criminalized unless it's filmed to be sold?
I can't believe you still don't see the double standard.
Ya, the difference is the fact that you filmed it and sold it. Should this be the deciding factor in whether it's legal? I thought prostitution was "wrong" because it's sex with strangers for money, not because it wasn't filmed and sold.
The laws are what they are. They don't tell us "why" they were written the way they were.
Quote:
I can't believe you still don't see the double standard.
The opinion that something is a "double standard" is subjective, of course. You see a double-standard; I do not. I see a difference between producing a movie for commerce and hiring an individual for my own personal sexual gratification.
The laws are what they are. They don't tell us "why" they were written the way they were.
The people who make them should, and we the people who are supposed to be sovereign over those who make the laws should think about why they are written. Should filming the act and selling the tape make any difference in whether the act will be considered legal?
Quote:
The opinion that something is a "double standard" is subjective, of course. You see a double-standard; I do not. I see a difference between producing a movie for commerce and hiring an individual for my own personal sexual gratification.
Do you see a difference between shooting heroin for personal gratification and shooting heroin for personal gratification on film and selling the video? Should one be legal and the other be illegal?
The people who make them should, and we the people who are supposed to be sovereign over those who make the laws should think about why they are written. Should filming the act and selling the tape make any difference in whether the act will be considered legal?
Hiring someone to perform in a porn movie doesn't qualify as prostitution in California, so the premise you're presenting is flawed from the beginning. Perhaps in other states, it would be valid.
Quote:
Do you see a difference between shooting heroin for personal gratification and shooting heroin for personal gratification on film and selling the video? Should one be legal and the other be illegal?
That would be a complicated case. I don't know the answer, really, but I think that if the movie were presented as a documentary, the act of shooting heroin could be legal in that particular situation.
These are really questions that a lawyer could answer a lot better than I.
Ya, the difference is the fact that you filmed it and sold it. Should this be the deciding factor in whether it's legal? I thought prostitution was "wrong" because it's sex with strangers for money, not because it wasn't filmed and sold.
Should shooting heroin be legal only if it's filmed to be sold?
Should masturbation be criminalized unless it's filmed to be sold?
I can't believe you still don't see the double standard.
Seriously!
You want use to believe your right.
Entertainment can be sold. Period.
Sex you buy and have with another human, is illegal in the majority of states. Paying to have someone touch you, to get you off, compared to you touching yourself, while watching.
Hiring someone to perform in a porn movie doesn't qualify as prostitution in California, so the premise you're presenting is flawed from the beginning. Perhaps in other states, it would be valid.
I know it doesn't qualify as prostitution in CA. My premise is exactly about the fact that it doesn't! A prostitute gets arrested specifically for having sex with a stranger for money. An "actor" does not get arrested for having sex with a stranger for money.
The judge may as well tell a prostitute "Oh the John didn't film it and call it porn, so you're going to jail. Next time you'll think before taking money from a guy with no camera."
Quote:
That would be a complicated case. I don't know the answer, really, but I think that if the movie were presented as a documentary, the act of shooting heroin could be legal in that particular situation.
These are really questions that a lawyer could answer a lot better than I.
You have no opinion on these laws? I wasn't asking for a lawyer's assessment of the current law, I was asking for your opinion on how the law should be.
Quote:
Originally Posted by BentBow
Seriously!
You want use to believe your right.
Entertainment can be sold. Period.
Sex you buy and have with another human, is illegal in the majority of states. Paying to have someone touch you, to get you off, compared to you touching yourself, while watching.
But you can "pay to have someone touch you, to get you off", and as long as you film it and call it 'porn' it will be legal.
Why should whether or not you film the act have anything to do with whether or not it's legal?
Why should whether or not you film the act have anything to do with whether or not it's legal?
Which state's laws are you referring to?
Again, in California, if it's filmed, it's assumed that you are primarily paying the actor for his or her performance in a movie. There's a legal distinction between prostitution and paying someone to perform in a pornographic movie.
Again, in California, if it's filmed, it's assumed that you are primarily paying the actor for his or her performance in a movie. There's a legal distinction between prostitution and paying someone to perform in a pornographic movie.
I KNOW THERE IS A LEGAL DISTINCTION!
I do not agree with the legal distinction; I think it is a double standard.
The state laws I'm referring to are hypothetical rather than specific, but CA fits the bill just fine. Any state that criminalizes "prostitution" but legalizes "acting in a porn film" fits.
As you said, if you film it, it would be considered legal. Why should filming it make the difference of legality?
--
Would you agree with this definition:
Prostitution: Having sex with someone (usually a stranger) for money.
If you agree with that definition, do you think that act should be illegal?
Whether you answered "legal" or "illegal", do you think that filming the act should change your answer?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
