Prostitute get paid to have sex with total strangers.
Porn stars get paid to have sex with total strangers.
Someone films the porn star having sex. There are lots of other people in the room watching. Then, billions of strangers pay lots and lots of money to watch it on film over and over again.
No one films or takes a picture of the prostitute and the john while they are having sex. No one else is standing around watching the sex act. Billions of strangers do not get to watch their sex act over and over again. It's a one time act, one simple money transaction.
Therefore, if a prostitute/john videotape their sex act and sell copies of the tape to random strangers, does it then qualify them as porn stars, thus making the whole thing legal? No?
Why not?
What's the difference? The logic currently is if the world gets to watch it happen, it's legal. If it's private, it's illegal.
Course, a porno star's income is taxable. A hooker's income isn't.
Maybe that's the answer...
2006-10-24 20:34:51 · 13 answers · asked by SushiBee 1 in Society & Culture ➔ Other - Society & Culture
My bumper sticker on my car;
Legalize crime, then Tax it.
So true.
If only people could see that making things illegal doesn't make them go away, it makes them MUCH worse.
2006-10-24 21:12:29 · answer #1 · answered by ModerndayMadman 4 · 1⤊ 2⤋
2
2016-07-24 13:36:43 · answer #2 · answered by ? 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
That's a damn good question! I suppose the illegality comes (oops) into play because the john pays the hooker, while in a porn flick both "actors" --- and believe me, I use the term very loosely (oops again) --- get paid by a third party. So I wonder what would happen if one of the "actors" was also the producer of the movie and therefore didn't pay himself but did pay the other "actor" to have sex with him/her on camera; is that then prostitution or pornography? I think your point is very interesting and well taken that private sex for hire is illegal while public sex for hire is perfectly legal. However, technically the filmed/taped sex isn't really public while it is being shot, and only really becomes public once it is shown to an audience, so then is it [illegal] prostitution while it's being recorded but somehow magically becomes [legal] pornography when it is played back?
By the way, in countries like The Netherlands and Germany where prostitution is legal, it is in fact taxed!
2006-10-24 20:51:50 · answer #3 · answered by backinbowl 6 · 0⤊ 1⤋
This is something which baffles me as well. The illegality of prostitution stems from a variety of things. Towns and cities argue that prostitution is amoral, and has the potential to "corrupt" youth and deteriorate neighborhoods by opening the doors for more serious crimes to be committed (drugs, gangs etc...). Pornography is *supposed* to only be distributed to adults (though obviously kids have been getting their hands on it pretty much since they've been making it) and is *supposed* to be safety regulated. In reality, it probably doesn't hurt (as Tim said) that politicians like porn way more than prostitution, and also that the government is able to collect taxes on pornography, which would be difficult to do with prostitution.
2016-03-28 06:55:53 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Your tax point covers most of it. The porn industry is an entity registered with the government and it is also regulated by the government. Prostitution is not, generally speaking. Nevada is an example of legal prostitution regulated by the government.
The same way prostitution cannot take place in any location, porn can only be filmed and sold in certain places.
It all comes down to law makers. If I am the representative of whatever county, and I believe the majority does not want porn or prostitution, then I will oppose it. Because the majority of votes is what gets me elected.
2006-10-24 20:45:09 · answer #5 · answered by jasonheavilin 3 · 4⤊ 1⤋
Probably because there could be a lot of corruption and people being forced into prostitution and people doing it out of desperation instead of working a burger joint.
For example in Germany where it is legal there was outrage when unemployed women were being pressured to accept jobs in brothels, the same as being required to take jobs in supermarkets and stuff if they are available for work and that is what is available.
Plus, most of society wouldn't really want to encourage that kind of behavior /job/career either..
A lot of people might be willing to do it (prostitution) in private but not being filmed...(porn)
Also, I mean porn is not really the same as prostitution at all, only in the way that they are both using sex/their bodies for money.
Porn is so mechanical, and entertainment, like a regular movie. Some might even call it art..
2006-10-24 20:43:40 · answer #6 · answered by Fluffy 4 · 1⤊ 4⤋
hmmm...
Has it ever occurred to you that porn stars are also prostitutes and vice-versa?
How do you know whether or not a prostitute has been filmed or pictures have been taken of her doing her "job"?
Hookers and porn stars are the same. From the most pathetic streetwalker to the Paris Hilton-type b!tches (pardon the french language).
Yes, Porn stars have a legal (not moral) job and they get taxed for it while hookers give a percentage to their pimps. That's about the only difference these two types of people have.
Bottomline...they are s-l-u-t-s.
nuf sed.
2006-10-24 20:47:29 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 4⤋
It falls under freedom of speech/ artistic expression.
And the porn stars are paid by a third party. The "actors" don't pay one another for sex.
2006-10-24 20:44:10 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 7⤊ 0⤋
Prostitution should be legalized and regulated by the govt. That would make it safer for the girls and the customers.
2006-10-26 17:56:15 · answer #9 · answered by Bigboi47 3 · 2⤊ 0⤋
Some weirdo Supreme Court judge used pretzel logic back in the 1970s.
2006-10-24 20:42:05 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 4⤋