egafd.com

No, we would simply carry on regardless the same as we have been doing since time immemorial. In fact it might make things better. It would scare off all those cap-dothing, Johnny Come Latelys who are now having a dabble because they now think it's legal and the coast is clear. These folks usually have a background in straight film and TV and can turn out a polished looking product. But sadly they haven't got a clue about porn and what punters like, so they hire the first few bland, scrag-end, birds that the porn model agency sends them, shoot the movie and then pop up on here going "TA-DA! We've shot a porn movie! Expecting us all to fall to our knees and gasp in awe and wonderment while simultaneously reaching for our chequebooks. "A porn movie? We'll, there's a turn up. Who would have thought hey? And it's got 'some birds' in it to - British ones at that. Sucking cocks 'n' stuff.... I know, really is amazing. I think I?ll order ten copies while the going is good.?

Unfortunately, all this extra participation means yet more bland - Give me one good reason why I should buy it? - type product on the sex shop shelves.

Dibble

......talking of which: do you know what happened to those two posh bints who were going into the biz, to offer high-class porn for the Annabel's crowd? Or Vicky Coren's much-hyped effort?
I can guess, but I'm sure you've got an inside track- so please DO dish the dirt..........

No, not heard anything about that specifically. However, I did read about a couple of posh birds opening up a high-class sex shop in central London to cater for sexy Sloanes. Apparently, it was intended that the shop would sell high-class dildos and the like which were to be sculpted from exotic materials and signed by artists such as Damien Hurst, Tracy Emin or whoever... I expect they would be a bit minty though.

Dibble.

The very same. Hope they're doing well (ahem....).
Must pop down next time I'm Up West......oh, I don't know though......I've probably got better things to do.
Like root-canal.

Pornstars being prostitutes...I've heard this from a certain male performer years ago and his mentality and attitude was one of a prostitue of the owrst variety...cold, hostile and not keen on providing a pleasant service to please the client.

I know of certain performers, both male and female who have dabbled in both sides and I imagine, they get paid a lot more for doing a lot less.

Being a performer is very demanding. Think of it: Doing stills and doing the scene which normally incorporates acts that most ladies in the escort profession may never do especially unprotected, so it follows there will be different attitudes to both prostitution and porno.

When people have asked me this question I usually reply that I don't pay people to have sex. I pay for the privilege of filming them having sex. A big difference when you consider I'm not (a lot of the time) benefiting out of personal pleasures from behind the camera. Believe me, its work when you are constantly looking through a viewfinder to film a scene...Then there's the editing...

In short, it is a lot harder on performers in the world of porno and the way I see it, a fair few models in my time have even refused money for doing videos and I've had to persuade them to accept it on the basis that they have worked for me (regardless of their enjoyment) and that I will be selling the end product so therefore they should get paid accordingly just like any other job they work for.

Sorry to go off on all tangents on this but it's not a simple one to answer but if I had to give a simple answer then that would be performers are not prostitutes for doing porn. Its a whole different ball game in my opinion.

Most prostitues don't do porn anyway and sometimes when prostitues have crossed over, they normally demand inflated fees and expect to do very little for it and don't appear to be enjoying themselves.

Interesting enough, I have to contradict myself here as I did do a shoot in a brothel recently for a client where the lady herself was HIV tested, provided i.d's and had a good time so I really can't generalise on this issue.

To put it in the words of Ice-T
When you break it down. The worlds divided into two categories and you are either a pimp or a ho. Which side do you fit in? In most cases, you'll find we all fit into both.

So can agencies who hire out XXX models be charged with Living off immoral earnings?

I think attitudes in the UK around the sex industry needs to be a bit more chilled out and if a lady or gentleman wishes to do a bit of "Evening work" of their own free will then all power to them.

Lets hope in a few years there are safe establishments for these people to work.

My boyfriend gave me some money at the weekend, I had sex with him the night before so am i one as well?

Michelle x

Yes you are.

I know thats blunt but the point myself, JJ, Dibble et al are trying to make is that prostitution is not inferior to being a porn performer. Lets be honest. Anyone who has sex for money wether it be in front of a camera or not is a whore. And theres nothing wrong with that. The term "whore" should be taken back by the women who sell sex in the same way that american blacks took back the "n" word. It neutralises the derogatory effect. Be proud to be called a whore. Whores offer a valuable service and indeed make the existence of this site possible due to the fact that each and every girl on the database is by very definition a whore. Its not right to wince at the sound of the word or to shy away from the idea of it. Any porn viewer who objects to the word or who makes a distinction is a hypocrite. If we do that then we make ourselves as bad as the moral majority that thinks we are all perverts.

I rest my case.

I think i will go home and ask for a pay rise LOL.

Michelle x

It depends what you're intentions were, Michelle. If you intended to have sex for financial profit or even pecuniary gain then you might be prostituting yourself........ but most likely you were just horny ?

This is really a key issue for everyone - particularly those in the sex industry.

Whilst I accept the logic of the argument that says we're all pros or pimps, I just don't think it really helps us to understand what we, as individuals, feel about the relationship between our sexuality and money. I think most models, producers and punters seek some form of 'moral' resolution over their activities. How they feel will have a large bearing on this.

If someone feels that 'artistic expression' or 'expressing sexuality' is their drive, then it would be difficult to claim that they are acting as a prostitute (I mean morally not legally). Sure, if an escort claimed that she/he wanted ?200 for an 'artistic performance' most of us would be cynical....... but, with out the ability to enter their psyche we really can't tell.

Clear differentiation between prostitution and porn, between telephone sex and a hand job, between a professional dominatrix and gang-bang slut is impossible if we rely on intent as the measure.

My suggestion would be to use 'physical proximity' as a proxy measure of intent. So the argument for porn NOT being prostitution would be something like;

- the key sexual relationship in porn is between the model and the viewer..... This relationship is mediated through video/dvd or, if its on stage, its mediated through 'theatre'. If physical proximity is treated a necessary condition for prostitution, then porn models aren't prostitutes.

- the relationship between the producer and the model is secondary to that and has two distinct areas; there's the professional formal contract, and there's the personal relationship. Sexual activity between the producer and the model should take place in the 'personal' rather than the 'professional' sphere. Producers should be careful about crossing this line because of the potential for the accussation of coercion .

- the 'on screen' relationship between models doesn't fall into prostitution because there is no immediate financial basis to their relationship. They are paid by the producer for the rights to the images of them having sex. There is no enforceable contract that says they must have sex - they do it for their own reasons BUT not because their fellow performers are paying them, hence they are not prostitutes.


Personally I'm not entirely comforatable with the notion that sex should become a commodity freely traded through the market by profit-driven corporations (just imagine McDonalds fast-sex outlets). That's why I think its important that society tries to get some sort of clarity, or general agreement on what constitutes prostitution. I think this would serve to clarify (in a legal way at least) what parts of the sex industry fall into the sphere of prostitution, and what doesn't. With a view to the forthcoming legislation I think this could be important as it can legitimise those activities such as porn, telephone sex, sex shows, peep shows etc etc where the test of physical proximity can be used.

A large grey area would still be left - does a Dominatrix become a prostitute because she's close to her client, or only if she has penatrative sex with him?

On the whole though, I think establishing some sort of measure for what constitutes prostitution and what doesn't would benefit the sex industry .... one could say that where physical proximity exists a new set of guidelines (say, as exists in lap dance clubs) should be in force if the activity is to be classified as performance rather than prostitution.

So, is physical proximity a neccessary condition for prostitution? (I say YES !)Is it a sufficient condition for prostitution (I say NO!).

Please note that nothing I've said casts a moral judgement upon those who do chose to sell sex - that is their right. Neither do I cast judgement upon those who chose to pay for sex - that is their right. The argument is about what constitutes selling or paying for sex, and how we define sex. As such I think the original question is both valid and important.

necromancer
an infequent poster but a BGAFD fan

necromancer, et al.
It may have escaped your attention, but prostitution in England is Legal.
"Prostitute" is mostly applied to poor,sad streetwalkers who are generally on drugs and mostly controlled by pieces of shit called "pimps"
Soliciting for the purpose of prostitution is illegal.

I repeat my previous comment as to the importance/futility of "labelling" people. My previous example was somewhat flippant but with a serious core.

Countries who either legalise properly run brothels or at least tolerate them, have a lower incidence of sex crime, but politicians continue to play silly games - as is their wont.

This whole defination game could go on ad nauseum with no concrete result other than to allow various parties a voice in public.