Porn vs. Prostitution

Damn, I forgot to sign in as Mtent.

Lmao.

As long as you broadcast live on the web or post the video to a porn site you should be fine.

Also there’s recording keeping requirements - name and proof of age of performers, health records, payments and releases, etc

Is it sex trafficking to take money for having your bull fuck a cow?

^ How old is the cow and did she consent?

" Damn, I forgot to sign in as Mtent. " Took me a while to stop laughing at that one.

In the end, I think anytime you are paying someone to have sex, it can be in someways described as prostitution. My opinion is that it really doesn't matter. I don't find anything wrong with it, so I'm not going to define it.

Now why LE doesn't see it that way, I'm not sure.

Shadow, I've always said that is there really is such a thing as reincarnation. I want to come back as a Registered Hereford Bull. All they do all day is eat, screw and poop.

@flagooner we have discussed this (I’m talking about you forgetting to sign in as Mtent) and the conclusion we come to is you are getting old man, and starting to lose it, err, correct that, you are losing it.

It's a valid question and one I've asked myself, they're both sex for $$$ - IMO it's just many of us Americans being hypocritical about sex b/w consenting adults - anti-P4P laws are antiquated and in reality do more harm than good

Porn used to be illegal. Don't give Mike Pence any ideas.

Actually, perorming “live porn” is illegal here. I don’t know about other jurisdictions. The “no fun” police have already thought of that.

"IF sex is legal and selling is legal, why isn't selling sex legal " - George Carlin.

I believe it was Supreme Court Justice William Douglas who said, “I can’t define pornography, but I know it when I see it.” Well, I can’t define prostitution, but I know it when I see it!

Justice Potter Stewart wrote those words.

@Warror15: “Now why LE doesn't see it that way, I'm not sure.”

It’s not LE per se. It’s the legislators. And for them, it’s the power to make people criminals for believing differently. If they make us criminals for little things, they can hold that over our heads. They want *everyone* to be a criminal, so that they can more easily be controlled.

Not giving horny-men an outlet is probably worst for society overall

So before I went to a strip club I had no idea that lap dances were full contact. I thought they were all air dances and at one point I actually spent some time looking into the idea of setting up a porn production company and hiring amateur porn models.

There are a few hurdles to setting up a porn company for your own legal sexual pleasure. First you need to make sure it looks and operates like a real porn company. You don't need customers or to actually make money but you would need to setup an LLC, business bank account, and all of the other dressing. None of this terribly difficult but it is a PITA and makes it much harder to be anonymous.

Next you need to find a willing amateur model. Unless you want to be really deceptive on craigslist (which you don't remember we are trying to do this is a 100% legal way) you need to build up a resume. So you need to go on model mayhem and start contacting models and paying them for photo shoots. Many of the girls there will do nude modeling for pay. Then from there work your way up to more hardcore stuff once you have a resume.

Ultimately as you can gather it is not worth the immense effort and time. You could setup a production company and hire escorts. If you can successfully explain this to an escort, get her to sign a contract and a photocopy of her drivers license... So pretty much not going to happen.

There was some moron on here years ago who was convinced he'd come up with a brilliant end run around prostitution laws by "just say your making porn". He was convinced this was full proof.

There's much truth in what GMD said a few posts up from this one.

Prostitution was legal in Rhode Island for several years, and there's some research pointing to distinct benefits. These two links both talk about the same study:

https://www.vox.com/2014/7/15/5898187/pr…

http://newsroom.ucla.edu/releases/decrim…

Huntsman, I appreciate the correction. I always associate Douglas with that statement, probably because he was the one with the hot wife about 50 or so years younger.

This discussion is far too interesting and salient to be started by mtent.

There’s an odd line drawn in the sand - that separates sex for money from porn. It’s odd that this country is ok with one being legal - and not the other.

I know this country has Puritan roots - and still quite a few Puritan ideals. I think there will always be sexual repression here.

So - if I’m in VIP getting it on with a filthy whore (who was acting like a stripper) - and the VIP room has cameras - aren’t we shooting porn - and not engaging in prostitution? Granted - nobody would pay to watch me fuck.

What if the girl gets a designer purse for the porn, rather than money? Sometimes the line between slutting and whoring is so blurry.

I’d think barter would be covered by a prostitution law - but I don’t know.

I always thought just having my load on her face was more than enough compensation!

The line between slutting and whoring can get rather blurry, especially after consuming a few adult beverages. Best not to overthink these things and just go for it. One can always come up with a few good rationalizations after the fact.

Many of the prostitution laws, including the one here in Kentucky, include barter in the definition. If you trade a bag of potato chips for a hand job, it’s prostitution.

> What if the girl gets a designer purse for the porn, rather than money?

I still think of you the same, cutie! But fuck those guys trying to make you jump through hoops to get a damn purse.

Yeah! Hoops should be extra.

Actually flagooner, the sugaring nuance might stand up in court, or at least the defense is plausible. The defense of sodomy laws, which are really anti gay laws, one of the arguments was that these were relationships that were "highly personal in nature" aka committed couples. Someone might try to defend sugering in the same way: that the sugaring relationship is highly personal and not as transaction as straight-up prostitution. IANAL, so I'm not sure if a judge would buy it.

Back to your porn analogy: actually the united states has had a history of try to ban porn. So why do they seemingly allow it? First Amendment implications, for one. Second, communities (like Anytown, USA) try to get around that with obscenity laws, which worked for awhile back when films where shown in XXX theaters or sold in shops on 8 mm film, 16 mm film, or VHS tapes. But in an era of the internet, i think the communities have largely given up, except for trafficking or pedophile porn.

It's just easier for them to fight prostitution, since they can attack the transaction. And it is easy to prosecute absent Constitutional protections. Court routinely deny defense based on First or Fourteenth Amendment defenses. Courts have said freedom of association doesn't extended to prostitution nor does it extend to illegal income. Both the courts and state legislatures seem to be statist WRT to our rights. fuckers. It's consenting adults, fuckers.

Basically, we allow it. Damn pearl clutchers about the fabric of society, both religious (right wing) and feminists (left wing). We allow them to legislate it as a criminal offense. The courts being statists, go along with them restricting our rights.