Prostitution Vs. Pornography

[nomore]

How many of you agree or disagree with this statement: Pornography and prostitution are basically the same.

 

Here's why: Prostitution is the sale of sexual services (typically manual stimulation, oral sex, or sexual intercourse, less often anal sex) for money or other kind of return, generally indiscriminately with many persons. Now in pornography two or more parties are engage in a sexual act and "all get paid" by the third party. Even after the initial payment, the sell of the act on different media formats is continued (unless it is a peep or a live show).

 

So why is pornography is legal? Could not street prostitutes bring a third party, have sex with the second party (customer), both get paid (the john gets very little [since he is paying] and the prostitute gets a large portion) by the third party thereforeeee the act falls under pornography class and still be legal?

[chai714]

So why is pornography is legal?

 

Pornography IS NOT open to the public (it does not offer any sexual services available for purchase). It only provides the media ex. dvd's (which is meant for entertainment purposes).

 

Prostitution IS open to the public (it OFFERS sexual services) and is NOT meant for just entertainment purposes, but human interaction.

[dotneter]

Now in pornography two or more parties are engage in a sexual act and "all get paid" by the third party.

 

What about stuff like playboy pictorals? They usually just have one person, and they don't exactly engage in a sexual act.

 

Porn is entertainment. Prostitution is physical stimulation. Look vs. Touch, whole different animals there.

[JonnyG]

There different cause 1 involves physical acts with som1.

 

Another question is what is the difference between (some) 1 night stands and prostution? I mean, some girls get with a guy so they can get free drinks off them and basically repay them with a 1 night stand. While a prostitute gets the money instead first, does the deed and then prob spends a lot of it on alcohol and cigs anyways. This is a common question asked. There is a resembalance.

[bestfootforward]

perhaps you should be asking why prostitution is illegal.

[SteveNaive]

Prostitution is illegal? Really?! Not where I live (currently Germany)...lol...

 

Apart from that I'd like to say it's not the same. Seeing a prostitute involves the physical act of sleeping with her (or whateve you go for) whereas watching porn just involves a "mindgame"... So we're back at the discussion where "cheating" starts...who knows?! But I'd say it takes more than just a guilty mind...

 

So I'd like to think watching porn and going to a prostitute is not comparable in the slightest... but again...you might want to judge that differently...

[nomore]

It seems like everyone assumes pornography does not involve the physical part. I am talking about the sexual involvement of the two or more parties in the pornography and not the entertainment aspect of it.

 

Anyone can set up a camera and start her/his own porn company. They are indeed providing a "service" except the third party is paying for it. Again I am not talking about "watching" porn but the actual physical involvement of the parties. Other than that, you may want to define "service" more specifically. In pornography, two or more people are providing a service to the third party, whereas in prostitution, one provides a service to someone else. To me they are indeed the same, you are just playing with the numbers.

 

If that's the case, as I said before, here is the scenario where the prostitution can be looked at as pornography:

 

Customer pays the third party $100, the third party sets up a camera and leaves, gigolo or a hooker engages in a sexual act with the customer. The third party pays the customer $1 and the worker $99, the media is destroyed. Wouldn't this be legal?

[bestfootforward]

Probably but then I think all victimless crime should be legal. Its a stupid concept.

[Roffler]

Hehe, prostitution itself is not illegal in Canada.

But some of the things involved with it are. I get the distinction the original poster was making, and I don't think many others followed.

 

It is ok to pay 2 people to engage in sex in front of a camera, but you cannot pay 1 person to perform sexual acts on another person without a camera. The apparant more extreme is legal, but not the lesser. Enter the massive loophole where you ask a hooker (and we all know they are out there) to participate in a video, and from that, you get around it. Or the prostitute could say she sells condoms with free samples. (Taken from the "Big Book of Legal Loopholes")

[nomore]

bestfootforward,

 

elaborate on your comment, I don't see a relation between victimless crimes and what my statement is trying to convey. Second, if there is a crime, you can bet there is someone that is being hurt, physically, financially, emotionally. So I don't know how you came to the conclusion that some crimes don't have a victim associate with them.

[bestfootforward]

You are making the assumption that because something is criminal, it is always a bad thing. In Iran they have just executed a woman for having 'a sharp tongue'. She broke the law but the law is not always just.

 

I'm saying that this is a silly issue to be concerned with. Obviously there's a daft paradox at the centre of this, but this is caused by the incorrect illegality of prostitution, not the correct legality of the manufacture of porn.

 

Or somethign

[nomore]

She didn't break any known law. Religious police (Baseez or Commiteh a.k.a fascist animals) randomly rounds up people in every protest or demonstration for no apparent reason as a mean to scare off people and oppositions (nothing new). They just slap the detainees with some pointless violation later on. Just to clarify that story: she was detained for photographing demonstraters which is not illegal. So not only she didn't do anything wrong, which is the case in most occasions, she got sent to coma for it. Unless you are talking about a totally different story.

 

I understand your point with regard to this issue of whether prostitution should be legal or not. I am not questioning it should be illegal, my remark was about the apparent loophole in the distinction between the prostitution and pornography. I am arguing that both are essentially the same and if one is legal OR illegal, the same law should be applied to the other as well.

[bestfootforward]

I would agree with that entirely. There's nothing as irritating as inconsistency in law. I'm just saying that rather than say ing why isn't porn illegal you should be saying why is prostitution illegal.

[sym666]

Maybe the different law tratment is due to historical facts: prostitution has always existed, while movies are related to technology. Now that the technology to realize them is in place, they are shot and the sell market is expanding every day. What I mean is that prostitution hasn't witnessed an economical boom as movies had, at least in recent ages.

 

If what I say is true, it comes that different treatment is not due to ethical issues, but economical, as it often and often happens nowadays.

[nomore]

In Thailand prostitutes are advertised as tourist attractions and frankly if they go about organizing the whole system, prostitution may even get them out of debt. And indeed it is a big part of their economy.