Amazon.com Widgets
  • Does The Pope Sh*t In The Woods?

    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.

  • No. This perspective is understandable, but misguided. It ignores the fact that, however limited, porn is performance for an audience.

    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.

    Posted by: M4I4cFeIine
  • Acting in pornography is absolutely legal prostitution because the so-called actors are getting paid 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.

    Posted by: N3vinFace
  • Pornography entails getting paid for sexual acts, so when taken literally, pornography is prostitution.

    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.

    Posted by: TownNoam
  • Whether filmed our not, money for sex is still prostitution.

    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.

    Posted by: Pur3E2ra
  • I believe pornography is a form of prostitution. Getting paid to perform a sex act is prostitution.

    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.

    Posted by: TaraThi
  • Pornography demeans all humans and is no better than 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!

    Posted by: Th4Fire
  • Yes, in the classic sense. Accepting payment for sexual activity is prostitution.

    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.

    Posted by: MohaI0v35
  • It is definitely an act of prostitution to act in pornography because you are having sex for money.

    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.

    Posted by: I33Horray
  • BLW-porn vs prostitution

    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.

  • Pornography is not prostitution, as it leans more towards voyeurism.

    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.

    Posted by: VoicelessEmil67
  • Acting in pornography is not a form of prostitution because those involved have a choice of who they sleep with.

    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.

    Posted by: H_Baird
  • Pornography is completely different from prostitution because the dangers of prostitution are eliminated in pornography.

    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.

    Posted by: 5cr33Kend
  • Prostitution and pornography are two different businesses.

    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.

  • No, cause then you could argue that pornography mags constitute pornography.

    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.

  • No because it is not sex for money, it is money to watch.

    In pornography, no one is paying someone else to receive sexual favors for themselves. Both pornographic actors are paid to put on a performance, and viewers pay to watch it. The driver of money if people's desire to WATCH the act, not people paying FOR PARTICIPATION in the act itself.

    An analogy: If there is a duel in a movie (both actors consent, both actors are paid), even if there is some actual physical violence, it is legal because it is a performance. On the other hand, if you walk up to someone on the street and start a duel, even if they consent (and even if you pay them), it is illegal because it is not a performance.

  • No because it is not money for sex, it is money to watch.

    In pornography, no one is paying someone else to receive sexual favors for themselves.
    Both pornography actors are paid to put on a performance, and viewers pay to watch it. In porn, the money is driven by the viewers who want to WATCH a sexual act, NOT people paying to have sex performed on them.
    In pornography, both parties are on equal footing–– they both choose to sleep with each other and both are getting paid to do it (or, rather, to be filmed). In prostitution, one person who wants sex pays the other person (who otherwise would not) to buy their consent. The prostitute have no guarantee that the buyer will not take advantage of their vulnerability and do something outside of what the prostitute agreed to (eg. Not use protection, use violence, rape them). In pornography, both parties are paid to have sex and let someone else film it, but they have free agency to withhold their consent to have sex with any specific person or with any specific sex act at any time. They are watched over by a whole camera crew, are vetted for STDs, and have to abide by the agreements in the contracts they sign.

  • No because it is not money for sex, it is money to watch.

    In pornography, no one is paying someone else to receive sexual favors for themselves.
    Both pornography actors are paid to put on a performance, and viewers pay to watch it. In porn, the money is driven by the viewers who want to WATCH a sexual act, NOT people paying to have sex performed on them.
    In pornography, both parties are on equal footing–– they both choose to sleep with each other and both are getting paid to do it (or, rather, to be filmed). In prostitution, one person who wants sex pays the other person (who otherwise would not) to buy their consent. The prostitute have no guarantee that the buyer will not take advantage of their vulnerability and do something outside of what the prostitute agreed to (eg. Not use protection, use violence, rape them). In pornography, both parties are paid to have sex and let someone else film it, but they have free agency to withhold their consent to have sex with any specific person or with any specific sex act at any time. They are watched over by a whole camera crew, are vetted for STDs, and have to abide by the agreements in the contracts they sign.

  • No it's not.

    There is nothing wrong with either but even more so when you consider porn is just acting. Two people having sex. Nothing wrong with that. You pay money to have sex with your girlfriend "taking her to dinner, getting her presents, movies, etc." why is it bad to just pay up front?


Leave a comment...
(Maximum 900 words)
No comments yet.