Is Pornography prostitution????

[Michael Wayne]

And..... are porn stars prostitutes? A client on my recent NYC tour asked me that question and I was speechless and did not know how to answer.

The client pointed out that technicly the guys are being PAID to have sex.....they are not choosing the partners, but, instead, are assigned a partner and told what to do. The pay is ''for performing sex acts."

I asked around and asked two lawyer clients. I'd like the forums' opinion. So, why is this important to me??? Well.... In any group of gay men, any gay gathering, porn stars are seen as gods and are held in very high esteem. However, if an escorts name is brought up there is sometimes a hushed silence and a pervasive sense of judgementalism!!!!!! A gay man generally feels he is inferior to a porn star but morally superior to an escort. It is stereotypical and has bothered me my whole escorting career.

The bottom line , in my opinion and in the view of the attorney clients I asked about it, is that there is no difference between what I do and what Ryan Rose or any porn star does......

There are legal issues here too.... DHS shut down rentboy and now M4RN is paranoid the new administration will go after them. So are the porn studios and individuals who make porn next because it is now constituted as prostitution.

The cover story from law enforcement is ''human trafficking'' which is bullshit because no rentboy advertiser was ever forced to advertise there. We have no pimps!! We are entrepeneurs who just happen to get paid for sex....

Oh I should not say that, you ask??? Well rentboy denied that too and it did not stop the feds. So getting paid for sex is what porn is. I am just bringing it up............. @ www.rentmen.com/magicmikeydc

Oh......PS.... let's dare not call porn ''acting'' and thus try and legitimize it. I saw ''Kinky Boots'' on Broadway a week ago and that is acting. "The Other side of Aspen'' is not ! last time I checked Ryan Idol and Jeff Stryker were never nominated for an Oscar!!!! lol ..... We saw where our ''hookie'' awards led us , didn't we?? To a jail cell....to arrests... We flaunted it recklessly and carelessly. I tried to warn the rentboy staff on several occasions but I was told , "Mikey we love you but you are old school. We represent the new way. We know what we are doing." Well now how did that work out?????

[down_to_business]

No. That is why there is that fascinating plotline and that rocking soundtrack... the cameras, the lights, the make-up and costumes... it's art!

[Rudynate]

We are entrepeneurs who just happen to get paid for sex....

 

 

Your colleagues would disagree with you. They say that they get paid for their time. Sex may happen incidental to the time they spend with their clients.

[MikeyGMin]

I imagine there are legal distinctions that the non-lawyers among us would never understand. However, porn must be legal because states make periodic attempts to regulate it but never outlaw it completly.

 

You live this day to day so I would not presume to disagree with your experiences. I would point out one thing though. I don't think you can confuse gay men's adoration of pornstars with a lack of judgement. I think many many gay men feel inferior and envious of pornstars physically, (because many of them are so damn hot) but still feel superior to them morally.

 

I'm sure there are some people who think it makes a difference that pornstars are mostly have sex with other hot guys, but my gut tells me opinions are more based on one's attitude about sex work in general. My gut also tells me that judgments about escorting probably vary quite a bit with age groups and morph as one gets older. There is going to be a whole bunch of 20-somethings who can't fathom having sex with an older man and may feel morally superior because of it. Those same men may feel very differently about it when they reach that age themselves.

 

Bottom line. Haters gonna hate. You are living your life your way and on your terms Fuck 'em!

[+ pitman]

Some porn studios, e.g. Treasure Island, claim that they talk to potential performers about what their fantasies are and what turns them on most. They then try to make it happen and record it. So if you buy that, their scenes are documentaries of what men do together. The men are not directed as to what to do, and they are not acting; they just do it and TI records it.

[doya66]

I suspect that the performance aspect of porn makes the legal difference. The actors are paid to have sex, but as a performance (Is it art? Sometimes!). They are not paid to provide sexual gratification to the audience (directly). And the fact that the audience is not physically present means that they are technically creating images, not providing orgasms, which are a side effect but not necessary to watch porn. Few would visit sex workers if they weren't reasonably certain of getting off. The distinction is probably at that point- around what is actually being created. By the same token, massage is perfectly legal, as long as it doesn't include the genitals. A stranger analogy would be a live sex show. These are rare because they are tightly regulated- strippers in most places can't even show their cocks. If it all seems weird and convoluted, the reason is that outlawing willing prostitution is irrational. It is not possible to draw a rational line around an irrational distinction. It's OK to sexually service the eye, but not the rest of the body...

[caliguy]

There is no difference. Both are getting $ to have sex. However, porn brings in allot of tax dollars and the population would rise up if they took it's porn away so the Government looks the other way.

[+ quoththeraven]

Your colleagues would disagree with you. They say that they get paid for their time. Sex may happen incidental to the time they spend with their clients.

 

Not that I think this works as a legal matter. See following:

 

Lawyer: So clients happily pay you the full amount whether sex happens or not. They never negotiate, give you less money or give you bad reviews if you don't perform (come, kiss, fuck, give blow jobs without condoms), aren't interested in sex with them or change your mind.

 

Unless an escort takes the position that the full amount is owed for time spent (and nothing for time not spent) irrespective and clients accept that, "time only" is just a fig leaf that makes charges harder to prosecute. It does not magically make laws against prostitution/paid sex go away or become irrelevant.

[+ Keith30309]

Aren't the fundamental distinctions that 1) performance for some medium (call it artistic if you like) which is a First Amendment protected act of expression, and, 2) the person paying for the sexual act (i.e., a producer) is not the beneficiary of the act itself?

[+ quoththeraven]

I agree the distinction is the performance, but no one has brought up the real answer: the 1st Amendment protects all porn that is not obscene under US v. Miller. These days most likely only child porn, snuff films, torture of animals, actual bestiality and non-consensual sex (as opposed to role play) and extreme violence would be considered obscene (not socially redeeming and beyond community standards) considering what is available online and its popularity.

 

For one thing, porn can be justified as education and sexual fulfillment. Most certainly educational/performance driven porn is protected; beyond that is a slippery slope I believe courts have no interest in entering as long as those maintaining access to such sites complies with record-keeping requirements and asks for confirmation of age.

[+ quoththeraven]

Aren't the fundamental distinctions that 1) performance for some medium (call it artistic if you like) which is a First Amendment protected act of expression, and, 2) the person paying for the sexual act (i.e., a producer) is not the beneficiary of the act itself?

 

Exactly. Paying for sex is trafficking and somehow cheapens it.

[Rudynate]

Not that I think this works as a legal matter. See following:

 

 

 

QTR, you're preaching to the choir.

[+ quoththeraven]

QTR, you're preaching to the choir.

 

I write stuff in responses that are for the benefit of the general audience, not necessarily the person to whom I am responding. They just happen to provide a good jumping-off point.

[Kevin Slater]

 

Kevin Slater

[+ friendofsheila]

And..... are porn stars prostitutes?

 

Legally, in the U.S.A. : No.

 

If anyone with brains looks at the situation and uses their brains at the same time: Yes.

[Rudynate]

According to People v. Freeman, a California case, porn actors are performers, not prostitutes.

[+ Tygerscent]

Having been in Porn and produced some... My understanding is that Porn stars are models paid for their time and performance~ The actors/models must be 2257 compliant and of legal age~

It's not human trafficking where prostutution laws are set to prohibit human trafficking~

The prostutution laws are however, archaic in the sense that they don't allow for safe and taxable sale of sexual practices by professionals who are in the industry independently and of their own free will and choice~

Porn is taxable regardless of that~

Escorting, itself, is not illegal where individuals are paid for their time and the services are variable in nature~

With prostutution, a person is selling and engaging in sexual acts with a purchaser. With porn, the hiring agency is not having sex with the hired models/actors... The models and actors are having sex with each other but, not

Paying each other for engaging in sex together~

Additionally, neither the filming agents/agency nor the actual models are having sex with the purchaser of the end product~

Tyger~

tygerkink@yahoo.com

971.400.2633

 

http://www.daddysreviews.com/review/tyger_portland

 

https://rentmen.com/AAATygerscentXXX

 

http://m.men4rentnow.com/profile.cfm?CID=114061

[+ quoththeraven]

Legally, in the U.S.A. : No.

 

If anyone with brains looks at the situation and uses their brains at the same time: Yes.

 

No. Porn performers are not ipso facto available to general public. If they were, they would be escorts. As I've made clear above (I hope), without some unworkable boundaries, I don't see a difference between that and what is prohibited by prostitution statutes.

[+ friendofsheila]

No. Porn performers are not ipso facto available to general public. If they were, they would be escorts. As I've made clear above (I hope), without some unworkable boundaries, I don't see a difference between that and what is prohibited by prostitution statutes.

Yes. Escorts get paid to have sex with a person. Porn performers: same.

 

Maybe it's 1 person, or a limited "pool" of people. Neither has to be available to the general public.

[LivingnLA]

The legal distinction is an old and very fine line: porn is legal because they're ACTORS PAID TO ACT. The sex is just part of the artistic expression of the role they're being paid to play. It's protected by the 1st Amendment.

 

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/explainer/2008/03/porn_vs_prostitution.html

 

http://www.hg.org/article.asp?id=31164

[caliguy]

Yes. Escorts get paid to have sex with a person. Porn performers: same.

 

Maybe it's 1 person, or a limited "pool" of people. Neither has to be available to the general public.

I'd throw in gold diggers, trophy GL/BFs, Desperate housewives or anything that Prez elect Dump has dated into that prostitution definition too. The money isn't directly paid at the end but it's still required. I think escorting is just too honest.

[+ quoththeraven]

I'd throw in gold diggers, trophy GL/BFs, Desperate housewives or anything that Prez elect Dump has dated into that prostitution definition too. The money isn't directly paid at the end but it's still required. I think escorting is just too honest.

 

I object to the suggestion that the dishonesty goes in one direction, but agree that escorting is more honest than most similar relationships based on in kind exchanges.

[uwsman2]

I just read a law review article on this that will be published in the Nevada Law Review and is available to subscribers on SSRN. The author demolishes the theory that paid porn actors are by definition prostitutes, through a thorough analysis of statutes and court decisions from many states. While there may be some exceptions, in most states, and particularly in California, porn producers and porn actors do not violate the law by their porn producing and acting activities. What they do outside these activities are a different story, of course.

[+ quoththeraven]

I just read a law review article on this that will be published in the Nevada Law Review and is available to subscribers on SSRN. The author demolishes the theory that paid porn actors are by definition prostitutes, through a thorough analysis of statutes and court decisions from many states. While there may be some exceptions, in most states, and particularly in California, porn producers and porn actors do not violate the law by their porn producing and acting activities. What they do outside these activities are a different story, of course.

 

Thank you for the voice of legal sanity.

[caliguy]

author demolishes the theory that paid porn actors are by definition prostitutes, .

How does he demolish it? You either believe it's all wrong or all right. There was a time not that long ago when the law made no such distinction. Like the drug laws. Yesterday I was a criminal. Today I'm a responsible pot smoker.