egafd.com

Trying to differentiate on a semantic level between prostitution and performing in porn films is only necessary if you deep-down believe there's something 'wrong' with prostitution, some moral stain with which you don't want porn associated.

Obviously it's very common in porn-fan circles to profess to thinking there's nothing morally wrong with prostitution. But if this is REALLY the case, why try to come up with tortuous arguments to separate porn from prostitution when the Oxford English Dictionary is so heavily against us? If we really don't give a shit whether girls escort on the side, if we really don't think prostitution is a vice, then we should be perfectly comfortable with acknowledging that the dictionary says a 'prostitute' is one who has sex for money, and that porn stars would seem to be a specialist sub-set of that group.

The reference to dictionary is crucial here because at the end of the day that's all we're arguing about - linguistics. Most of us are agreed - I think we are - that both porn and prostitution are morally neutral. To us, therefore, they are simply words; labels. Whose definitions happen to overlap, but that's of no consequence since neither word imports any moral significance. If it means nothing, morally, to be a prostitute, then who cares whether the definition fits?

Inari Vachs recently acknowledged in an interview that she could be described as a type of prostitute, and didn't give a fuck.

I certainly don't mean to cause any offence to anyone by saying this and I should certainly point out that Rimbaud himself has in the past received payment to appear in 'amateur' productions. And I wouldn't commonly use the word 'prostitute' in this context, except in this company and as part of this debate, since it doesn't carry moral neutrality to all listeners. But there you go.

Tabitha Cash, in a TV interview, also described her porn work as prostitution.

Personally I would define prostitution more narrowly as the provision of personal sexual services to a paying customer (or occasionally to somebody nominated by the paying customer).

As for porn girls escorting on the side, I think it's more likely, given the relative potential earnings, that girls who do both are escorts doing porn on the side.

I overstepped the line myself a few weeks back, and quite rightly got my knuckles rapped, and I think the sensible thing is that we shouldn't indulge in hearsay, which is what most of it is.

Having said that, though, what about girls who have websites advertising their escort services, in one case I know of using the same name as she does in her porn work and describing her video work as part of her personal profle?

What harm could be done tallkng about them, and are we allowed to?

Re: mentioning of individual girls' names - didn't mean to reopen that particular can of worms.

It is best avoided for a host of reasons.

I think this is perhaps a little disingenuous: it's OK to say words/labels are "morally neutral" while ignoring the terrible power they have: no aspiring dictator shoulld be without a Newspeak dictionary. PC itself is largely based on this notion, that you can't conceptualise a thing if you haven't a word for it.
The word 'prostitute' in the English language seems to be used by the Great and Good as a stick to beat both providers and consumers of a morally-unobjectionable (and, I would argue, socially necessary) service with. Which is why I was exercised that porn performers often seemed to be included in this category by the lay press.
You hit the nail on the head with your comment about the double standards applied by some porn fans and the tabloid press in general.....that behaving in a blatantly sexual manner in public or treacherously revealing details of an ex-lover's peccadilloes for a consideration is somehow acceptable, while accepting money for an upfront sexual transaction of any kind is deemed morally repugnant.
This hypocrisy seems to be a result of the regrettable Puritan hangover from which Britain still suffers today.

Hear, hear! I could not have put it better myself. Well not after drinking huge amounts of beer & wine anyway.

vila wrote:
> Having said that, though, what about girls who have websites
> advertising their escort services, in one case I know of
> using the same name as she does in her porn work and
> describing her video work as part of her personal profle?
>
> What harm could be done tallkng about them, and are we
> allowed to?

Well, first of all, as this forum is primarily intended for the discussion of British girls in adult films, I've never really understood why it's deemed so important by some that unrelated aspects of these girls lives should be allowed to come under the microscope here.

That aside, as I see it, the main problem is that once such a discussion starts, others are going to start thinking it's ok to talk about escorting here simply because they've seen it discussed elsewhere on the site. They then start getting upset or don't understand when their posts are removed and before you know it everything breaks down. Rather than cloud the issue with exceptions, it's far better and easier if we set out clear rules that everyone can understand. Besides which, as it states in the FAQ, there are other, better, forums for escort related discussion anyway. Just as there are better forums for DIY, gardening, stamp collecting, ...

Agreed. A thorny issue with potential pitfalls; no way for the webmasters to weed the true from the untrue. Best to have a firm policy which everyone understands - even if it means the odd good-faith posting gets deleted.

It's only a website after all.

In America they are quite open with the fact that a number of U.S porn stars have sex for money with their fans, at a ranch.I remember reading that you could for instance have sex with ________ for a couple of hours for $3000, no secret of the fact either.

Best be careful there.

No names AT ALL for reasons stated above by Phil and by me on too many occasions to count.