I'm not against either pornography or prostitution. However, how can we differentiate between the two when prostitution is illegal? When prostitution means exchanging money for sexual acts, then one must interpret that pornography, when the parties are paid, is a form of prostitution.
The idea behind prostitution is that one party is paying another for sex, with the understanding that the paying party will receive the benefit. If you think about pornography, there is really no difference. The paying party, the person who buys the movie, is receiving the benefit. The person who participates in the sex is receiving the payment.
Prostitution is the act or practice of providing sexual services to another person in return for payment. From that definition, it is easy to conclude that acting in a pornographic movie easily fits this definition. Fortunately, in the United States, pornography is closely regulated to prevent child abuse. Unfortunately, this isn't true of prostitution.
Pornography is just another way to exploit another or to exploit your own dignity. I'm not saying that either should be illegal, I just think that a hooker is no worse than a pornographer, and at least she earns her living while someone who takes pictures of the act is just exploiting another person's misery. Acting in adult films is just prostitution for pretty people!
I believe that pornography displays all of the same similarities as prostitution. Porn involves people getting paid to perform sex acts on film or camera. The pornography producers acts as pimps not agents. They get paid the majority of revenue and the actors get to keep a very small percentage. There is violence, drugs, and abuse involved. These are the reasons why I think pornography is a form of prostitution.
When did we think that just because it is being filmed that acting in pornography is not prostitution? The only difference is that the actors are being filmed and then paid. In my opinion, that is so much worse. Disregarding all of the other negative effects of pornography, I believe that having sex with anyone in exchange for any sort of tangible item in return (this includes money) is prostitution.
Pornography is media relating to prostitution (which was the sex slave trade at its earliest roots).
Porn is the current sex trade. We may find it deplorable, but it is infinitely preferable to capturing women as slaves and then subjecting them to abuse and selling them as concubines.
They're probably slaves to drugs and childhood abuse, but at least in the porn industry it doesn't continue on even more brutally for them. Anyway, yeah...prostitution...a kinder, gentler version (a thousand points of light...). Goodnight, ladies and gentlemen. Don't forget to tip your waitress.
In pornography, someone is paying an individual to have sex or represent sexual acts. That is prostitution. To say that either prostitution or pornography are wrong is a different matter entirely. Should pornography should be subject to the same laws as prostitution? Definitely not. They are distinct, and it is easier to regulate pornography than it is to regulate prostitution. Though those barriers are being broken down in the information age.
Prostitution is someone getting paid to perform sexual acts. There's nothing different about people performing in pornography. It is a form of entertainment, but the people are getting paid to perform sexual acts, thus, making it the same exact thing. I think pornography should be a bit harder to get a hold of.
Maybe there was a grey area in the 70s when some tried to create a dramatic genre that also included the explicit sexual element, but now it is truly getting paid for sex, plus camera. People realized that watching explicit sex and watching dramatic film are two different activities. The legal distinction of exactly who is paying whom, and why, is definitely arbitrary, as demonstrated with the example of a third party paying a prostitute to have sex with someone. Even someone paying two prostitutes to have sex with each other is still prostitution. Why does a camera change everything? It would be good if the law was consistent, one way or the other.
Why is it illegal to pay a prostitute for sex if it is not filmed, but adding a video camera for the purpose of selling it is legal pornography? This irony has largely been ignored by courts and the general population, though should be addressed when shaping our laws and public opinion.
People are having sex in pornography for money. Even if I concede that the person paying isn't the person having sex, is this very different than hiring a prostitute for someone else to have intercourse with? We classify a transaction in terms of what is exchanged for what. In prostitution, as in porn, money is exchanged for sex.
Yes pornography is prostitution, because the women and/or men will get paid to have sex. It's just virtual prostitution. Someone mentioned that "pros" have pimps. Not all of them do. The ones that don't, usually have children they are trying to support, and have a body that is "attractive" to others.
Prostitution is when a person takes payment for performing a sexual act. An actress in pornography takes payment to perform a sexual act on film or in photographs. This is very similar to a prostitute taking payment to perform a sexual act and allowing others to watch.
Since prostitution is defined as the act of trading sexual favors for money, it seems pretty clear that all of the actors in the pornography industry are prostitutes, since they are taking money to perform sexual acts.
Prostitution is defined as the transaction of sexual favors in return for cash or material goods. The porn industry is built on such transactions between men and women and participants of the same sex. The only creature who does not benefit monetarily from acting in pornography is the occasional beast and even he gets room and board. If the actors didn't get paid, they would not perform. Therefore, acting in porn is by definition, prostitution.
Art can be defined many ways. One approximation is the deliberate, ordered display of persons, objects, or abstract things (shapes or sounds) for the perception of an audience. Thus, while it is rarely highbrow and often boring, stupid, or degrading, pornography can clearly be thought of as art. Sex evokes our deepest curiosity, after all, and while it has been explored in art outside pornographic contexts, the question porn addresses, of what arouses its user, can be a quite subtle one that requires (or at least invites) creative and emotional sensitivity on the part of its filmmakers and performers. While much of this argument about the nuanced psychological communication often accompanying sexual behavior could obviously be applied to prostitution as well (not to mention sex in general), visual pornography, and whatever elements of improvisation it entails, is distinguished by being arranged in chosen ways for a viewer, who does not participate.
The only difference between the two is that the government taxes porn stars and not "pros." I also think it's a form of voyeurism. If it's illegal to have sex for money on the streets then it should be no matter whether it's viewed as a form of "art" or the individuals' next meal ticket. Either it's legal or it's not. Sex is sex.
Those who 'star' in porn are, indeed, accepting payment in exchange for performing sexual acts. The only difference that might exist is that a traditional prostitute does what they do in order to entertain those in the room, so that they can get their money. Those in pornography do what they do to entertain anyone in the world that is willing to look at them.
They're not making money from the act, they're making it from letting others view them in the act. If it were a pornography video that they paid a hooker to do the act and then made money from selling it as a porno then it could fit in both categories prostitution and pornography but that's the only way it could be construed as pornography.
Pornography is not prostitution. If pornography is prostitution, then, by extension, everyone who has ever videotaped themselves having sex and posted it on the Internet is engaging in some kind of prostitution. Pornography is leaning more towards voyeurism. The fact remains that these are all acts that are taking place between consenting adults.
In prostitution, one person pays the other for sexual intercourse. There are no background checks for any STDs, and there are no legal insurances that the client will pay the prostitute. Pornography, on the other hand, is quite different.
In pornography, both actors (or possibly more) are paid for being in the video or photo. The actors are assured pay, because pornography is their actual job. Also, the actors are prepared for what they're getting involved in, unlike a prostitute that may not know how aggressive his/her client is.
While there is a dirty side to the pornography industry, the actors have certain rights that set them apart from prostitutes. They are allowed to choose their sexual partners and have the right to refuse to do a scene with someone. Just because many do not choose to exercise these rights for one reason or another does not mean they do not have them.
They are similar because they consist of the same sexual activities but when you look at them separately, they have a lot of contrasting views. For example, prostitutes have a pimps that abuse and force and oblige these acts to be done, and apply consequences when they aren't. But pornstars have managers that book them gigs, and just like any actor or actress in the media, they can accept or deny any offer they get. Prostitution isn't always consensual but pornography is.