I asked pretty much the same a long time back, and concluded from the replies that the answer was 'not much different, but we consider ourselves/are considered to be a cut above that sort of thing', 4WIW.
I think it's a somewhat sterile argument that tends to get bogged down in moralising, which is why all these ought to be referred to as 'sex workers' or some such semantically more neutral designation, to get round the whole problem.
Porn equivalent to prostitution?
-
Wink Wink
Re: Look chaps....
If someone WAS taken to court & prosecuted under the prostitution laws for being paid for having sex in a porno movie what would happen to the porno industry would it collapse?
-
jj
Re: Its been tried in the USA.
Is it any more 'immoral' for a young girl to have 100+ one-night stands and possibly several 'illegitimate' children, than to be on the game? Or for innocent children to be bombed in the name of 'freedom'?
This is the sort of nonsenese we get into when discussing legal attitudes to the sex industry.
IMO what someone does with their body is nobody's business than their own and Government has no place dictating or moralising what form that should take.
This is the sort of nonsenese we get into when discussing legal attitudes to the sex industry.
IMO what someone does with their body is nobody's business than their own and Government has no place dictating or moralising what form that should take.
-
jj
Re: Look chaps....
Not much of a threat, that, is it, really?
If I threatened not to post, I'd either be greeted with gales of uncharitable laughter, or howls of approbation.....
.
The trouble with legalism is that it doesn't address the real world: it's about time our legislators realised that, as the classic old boy in Yorkshire said, having been brought before the beak after being caught having a knee-trembler in a shop doorway: "Tha'll never stop fooking in Bradford".
It helps if you regard the sex industry as a broad church, and prostitution and pornography as merely two of its manifestations......
If I threatened not to post, I'd either be greeted with gales of uncharitable laughter, or howls of approbation.....
.The trouble with legalism is that it doesn't address the real world: it's about time our legislators realised that, as the classic old boy in Yorkshire said, having been brought before the beak after being caught having a knee-trembler in a shop doorway: "Tha'll never stop fooking in Bradford".
It helps if you regard the sex industry as a broad church, and prostitution and pornography as merely two of its manifestations......
-
Wink Wink
Re: Look chaps....
Can't really see anyone EVER being taken to court for having sex in a porno film under the prositition laws. Proberly lots of grey area's but I ain't no legal person to know them, but I guess someone does within the industry so that they stay within the bounds of the law.
-
Mike
law...
(q) If someone WAS taken to court & prosecuted under the prostitution laws for being paid for having sex in a porno movie what would happen to the porno industry would it collapse?
(a) Its not the models who would be taken to court. As you know the 'real' proatitutes only get fines.
Its the question of the film makers/procucers being taken to court.
The argument is, is that they are living off imoral earnings. This is a true fact, and criminal under UK and I belive USA laws.
BUT, and this is the BIG BUT, as its been tried and failed in the USA its VERY unlikly that it will be tried in the UK, as the same winning argument will be used.
We are also partof the EU, and in reality EU law now overrules UK law. And as porn is relitivly legal in europe, england has to follow.
In reality its MORE likly that porn companies in the US are more likly to be in truble with the law than in the UK as the FBI still go after porn makers and will do anything to stop them.
The one thing the FBI does is tio do people on tax (yes they started with AL Capone). You will find most companies in the USA who deal with payment in porn will artomaticly take the tax for you so FBI cannot clobber you.
You will notice that many USA porn sites have some wording on there site about 18 year olds. US HAVE to KEEP FULL records of there models to prove the models age.
USA law is FAR more strikt in many ways than UK law.
(a) Its not the models who would be taken to court. As you know the 'real' proatitutes only get fines.
Its the question of the film makers/procucers being taken to court.
The argument is, is that they are living off imoral earnings. This is a true fact, and criminal under UK and I belive USA laws.
BUT, and this is the BIG BUT, as its been tried and failed in the USA its VERY unlikly that it will be tried in the UK, as the same winning argument will be used.
We are also partof the EU, and in reality EU law now overrules UK law. And as porn is relitivly legal in europe, england has to follow.
In reality its MORE likly that porn companies in the US are more likly to be in truble with the law than in the UK as the FBI still go after porn makers and will do anything to stop them.
The one thing the FBI does is tio do people on tax (yes they started with AL Capone). You will find most companies in the USA who deal with payment in porn will artomaticly take the tax for you so FBI cannot clobber you.
You will notice that many USA porn sites have some wording on there site about 18 year olds. US HAVE to KEEP FULL records of there models to prove the models age.
USA law is FAR more strikt in many ways than UK law.
Re: pornstars are not swingers, wrong
judging by your reply, you haven't bothered to read the faq paragraph in question. it's not a matter of whether it's true or not. we just aren't interested in becoming a forum for fantasy punters.
if you're that keen to know more try visiting for a more relevant forum.
if you're that keen to know more try visiting for a more relevant forum.
-
Mike
Re: Its been tried in the USA.
Its not realy what the model does, its the fact that those who make porn are 'living off imoral earnings'.
-
Mike
Re: Look chaps....
What may happen is that somone takes somone to court privatly.
sorry I forget the legal term, but basicly the 'state' does not have to take you to court, it could be done privatly.
My thought is that a churce group ect could take say xcv productions (a made up firm) to court, saying they are making money from imoral earnings.
It would be an interesting case.
sorry I forget the legal term, but basicly the 'state' does not have to take you to court, it could be done privatly.
My thought is that a churce group ect could take say xcv productions (a made up firm) to court, saying they are making money from imoral earnings.
It would be an interesting case.