I mean, you're basically paying men and women to have sex. The only difference is that they're having it on camera and the resulting video is being sold to make money. Why isn't that considered prostitution, the web definition of which is "the act or practice of engaging in sex acts for hire?" Does the mere fact that this is a multi billion dollar industry excuse it from being labelled as prostitution and therefore illegal? Why is prostitution illegal in California when its San Fernando Valley is the porn capital of the world? This is not a moral question for me but a legal one.
2007-10-15 07:40:15 · 9 answers · asked by abdiver12 5 in Politics & Government ➔ Law & Ethics
That's a good question! I guess it depends on the exact wording of the law, and what prosecutors want to try to do.
For example, in Canada, prostitution itself is not illegal. What IS illegal is soliciting ("asking for money, or offering" - in public; it was ruled that if the woman stuck her head in a car, that was not public.) and "Keeping a common bawdy house" or being a found-in when it's raided. So in Canada, the sexual act isn't targetted, but the explicit request for money, or having a place where prostitues frequent or "living off the avails of prostitution" or pimping, is illegal.
Maybe this is the case in California? Offering sex for money is illegal, but what two consenting adults do once "hooked up" is not.
After all, the purpose of most of these laws is to prevent the nuisance of women hanging around street corners; men bothering women because they think that these are prostitutes; and the noise and other hassles of places where men come and go at all hours; and the crime and violence that go with people engaging in illegal activity, or trying to muscle in on the profits.
Stuff that happens in private, without bothering anyone, has a long history of being tolerated even if technically illegal. Bringing millions into the local economy can't be too bad either.
Also, the question is - at what point is the activity illegal? Is simulating the act illegal? What if they use "inserts" - the actors writh around together, but the genital close-ups were done by someone else? (OK, not in most modern porn...) How do you prove who was charged. Does there have to be an element of "offering" by one side, or can a third party - the director - do the paying? Does there have to be a "one-per-act" pay rate, or does for example paying for your mistress's apartment constitute prostitution? Your wife's? If the actresses don't get paid by each act for re-takes, does it technically stop being prostitution?
it seems a lot simpler to just go after the girls on the street corners...
2007-10-15 08:04:32 · answer #1 · answered by Anon 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
2
2016-07-30 00:04:03 · answer #2 · answered by ? 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
That's the point -- you're NOT paying people to have sex on camera.
You are paying people ACT like they are having sex -- if they choose to actually have sex, that is their choice --it's not a contractual requirement. That's the loophole -- the contract is for something else (acting services) and the sex is not part of the contract.
Prostitution is a prohibition against having sex as part of commercial contract -- an exchange of money for sexual services.
People can always pay to have some other service performed -- as long as the sex is voluntary and not contractual. That is the legal distinction.
2007-10-15 08:46:33 · answer #3 · answered by coragryph 7 · 1⤊ 1⤋
I will say it must have something to do with 1st amendment 'freedom of expression'
but I don't know the legal details
imho prostitution (or the oldest profession, as it is called) should probably be legal as well, but christian conservatism doesn't use much common sense
2007-10-15 07:44:13 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
By hiring to people to have sex, you are engaging in a sex act for hire, you are observing a sex act for hire. The actors are not having sex with you, and neither one of them paid the other to have sex with them so they are not engaging in a sex act for hire. Technically. his is the loophole in the law that they exploit. I believe.
This is just my interpretation. because I like your logic, it would seem to me if you were being honest, it is akin to prostitution.
2007-10-15 07:55:10 · answer #5 · answered by QBeing 5 · 1⤊ 0⤋
The only difference is that a person is paying two people to have sex with each other, ....instead of one person paying someone to have sex with them.
However, I agree that there really is no difference. Either way you look at it, it's getting pay for sex.
Prostitution is a victimless crime...should be legal in all 50 states.
2007-10-15 07:47:53 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 5⤊ 1⤋
I wonder if you'd have to arrest Hollywood actors then who film sex scenes?
.
2007-10-15 07:56:06 · answer #7 · answered by Wave 4 · 1⤊ 1⤋
good q
2007-10-15 07:47:23 · answer #8 · answered by krazykiddz 3 · 1⤊ 0⤋
because there is no physical contact
2007-10-15 07:47:41 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 3⤋