Prostitution vs. Pornography

[goddess_nemesis]

This may have already been discussed, but when I searched for a thread about it, I couldn't find anything.

After Charlie Sheen had his meltdown at the hotel in NYC, there was an unknown woman hiding in the bathroom. Until she revealed her identity, the media was dubbing her a prostitute. She came forward and identified herself as the porn star Capri Anderson, aka Alexis Capri whom some of us recognize from tickling videos. Her reason for coming forward was she was sick of being referred as a prostitute and she wanted to set the record straight that she's instead a porn star.

I've wondered about this before and I started thinking about it again after reading about the Charlie Sheen fiasco. I'm sure most people have at some point wondered about it as well. How is pornography different from prostitution? Particularly in this situation how is a porn star different from a prostitute, other than the obvious being a porn star is legal and prostitute is not.

Prostitution is defined as "the act or practice of providing sexual services to another person in return for payment." A porn star is paid to engage in sexual service with another person.

Is there a difference beyond the legal stance? Why is pornography allowed but prostitution is illegal? Porn stars are paid to have sex. You pay a prostitute for sex.

Maybe I'm simplifying it, but I'm curious what people's opinions are.

 

[Amnesiac]

The legal distinction was made in the 1987 case of California v. Freeman. Harold Freeman was arrested for hiring actors for a porn shoot, but when appealing to the California Supreme Court, the court determined that the California pandering statute wasn't intended to cover hiring actors for sexually explicit, but NON-OBSECENE performances. Because he was shooting porn, and not hiring the actors to gratify him or each other, the statute didn't apply. This is why lots of anti-porn cases use the obscenity angle: proving obscene content is the only way they can strip a porn from its First Amendment protection.

In short, it was determined that because pornography was created for the purposes of ENTERTAINMENT--that is, it was filmed footage of sex intended to be viewed for enjoyment--it was not an act of prostitution and instead an entertainment "product" that had a commercial use for the citizenry at large.

Democracy Baby!

From there it's a moral vs. legal distinction.

If you consider prostitution the exchange of sex for money, then technically porn falls into that category. However, if the legal distinction is made as you quoted, then its the private action that makes the difference: it's the person trading a sexual favor for money from another person that makes it separate. Having sex with people for the purposes of making a movie to sell as a media for consumers kind of eliminates the private act of it and makes the sexual act part of the national commerce.

Porn companies and their employees have to pay taxes and keep records in the event that the government needs to investigate. Prostitution, even REGULATED prostitution, operates an a level intimate enough that income can be hidden/unreported and institutional abuse can still occur. Now while both can happen in porn, its harder to hide and easier to get the authorities involved provided you can risk the publicity; in prostitution, more dangerous parties are involved, even on the administrative level.

Pictured: Prostitute Complaint Department

Now you can argue whether the dangers of prostitution are CREATED by its prohibition or not--either one is valid--at the end of the day, it is mostly illegal for the same reason that porn was (and is continually) attacked: it doesn't conform to the cultural mores of sexual conduct. Now that conduct is mostly a remnant of pre-Revolutionary War influence, but the population at large still doesn't want to be seen as supporting porn or prostitution because of the association sexuality has with moral bankruptcy.

But after all this, you then have to ask yourself WHY sex for money is a bad thing. And since we're a pluralist government, you can't use religious reasons because that only applies to those who willingly adhere to a particular religion; you can't use it as the basis of government policy. Beware though, if you're going to argue that the harm of porn and prostitution outweigh the benefits of self-determination, you set a dangerous precedent that can revive, among other things, the Volstead Act.

Now, as for Capri Anderson, a lot of porn stars supplement their considerable income with escorting; some are happy to do lots and lots of feature dancing (stripping) tours across the country, but if they aren't in sufficient demand/have too big of a drug habit, they turn to escorting to make more money. Jim Powers of JM Productions is notorious for hiring performers who are mostly drug-addled street hookers for his extreme productions because they do worse things for less money on the street and porn is a great way to make good money fast. But Capri Anderson was asking $12,000 for the night from Charlie Sheen, which is hardly bottom-of-the-barrel situation. Why she wanted that money bad enough I can't say.

So porn is exempt from the prostitution angle because it doesn't violate obscenity prohibitions or fall into pandering practices. The commercial and democratic infrastructure they have makes it available to the public rather than the private.

 

[goddess_nemesis]

Thanks, Amnesiac. That was very informative. 😀

 

[milagros317]

IMO both should be legal among consenting adults.

 

[LD_Tickler]

Agree that both should be legal.

Some important differences from the perspective of the porn stars/prostitutes exist too. A porn star has an agent, legal contracts, networking and contacts... essentially far more forms of control over when, how, where, and with whom they work. More control over their career activities.

A prostitute on the other hand is not in as powerful a position to decide such details. Not to mention the danger is far far greater.

 

[kurchatovium]

Both should be legal between consenting adults I think.

 

[DontAskJusTckle]

Probably the biggest difference is that the porn star at least knows the name of the man she's banging.

 

[tkpatience]

IMO both should be legal among consenting adults.

Both should be legal between consenting adults I think.

Agree that both should be legal.

Some important differences from the perspective of the porn stars/prostitutes exist too. A porn star has an agent, legal contracts, networking and contacts... essentially far more forms of control over when, how, where, and with whom they work. More control over their career activities.

A prostitute on the other hand is not in as powerful a position to decide such details. Not to mention the danger is far far greater.

I noticed that all three threads support legalizing prostitution between two consenting adults.

There's always Nevada brothels. Those are kinds of legally regulated prostitution as well as profession.

The possibility for proliferation of STDs has prompted outspoken opposition to the idea of completely legalizing all prostitution altogether. I would support legalizing prostitution if, and only if, there was consent between both parties and both parties would also agree to be tested for STDs prior to said session.

Also to add to the discussion a little:

Pornography is potentially protected as artistic in the form of erotica. As mentioned before TPM (time/place/manner) play a huge role in legality of pornography.

Jacobellis v. Ohio 1964
miller test established in the 1973 miller v. california case

I've actually worked in photo before and the people I worked for were a bunch of nimrods who didn't know the difference between protected erotica and nonprotected pornography. The Miller test allows for a logical way to decide whether something is art or obscene.

As for the difference between prostitution and pornography, I conclude that one is protected because it can be perceived as artistic in nature while the other one not only fails the Miller test but is also considered to be done so in an indecent manner TPM.

 

[Bugman]

The laws against prostitution are archaic, relics of the past that should be done away with. Make it legal, with regulation on the state level.

Many years ago I got a jury summons. When we got to the courtroom, I found out it was a prostitution case. After the attorneys had finished we were asked if anyone did not wish to serve, for any reason. I told the judge I would serve but would not vote to convict regardless of the case presented.

It goes without saying I was summarily dismissed. 🙂

 

[Mephistopheles]

I think US laws considering these things is a load of crap. Just as it is on a lot of other controversial issues imo.

 

[MrMacphisto]

Legalize, regulate, tax, and educate.