pornagraphy VS prostitution

[Doc. Josh]

I was wondering in regards to pornagrapy and prostitution, why is one ok and not the other? They are one in the same, you legalize one and damn the other.

[zapatos]

I was wondering in regards to pornagrapy and prostitution, why is one ok and not the other? They are one in the same, you legalize one and damn the other.

Which one is ok and which one is not? Both are legal and both are illegal depending on the circumstances.

[Doc. Josh]

in terms of prostitution? Is illeagle, i do not know where it is thats legal?

[timo]

Which one is ok and which one is not? Both are legal and both are illegal depending on the circumstances.

...and country.

 

in terms of prostitution? Is illeagle, i do not know where it is thats legal?

Germany and the Netherlands, for a start. Or more specifically (assuming you do have a rough idea where countries lie on a world map): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Prostitution_laws_of_the_world.PNG

Edited May 20, 2011 by timo

[Doc. Josh]

Ok, restate ( in the US)

[timo]

No need to restate. Everyone knows that people who are posting on the most international platform there is (the Internet) without being aware that there is a rest of the world talk about the US

[Ophiolite]

Ok, restate ( in the US)

Nevada.

[lemur]

I was wondering in regards to pornagrapy and prostitution, why is one ok and not the other? They are one in the same, you legalize one and damn the other.

The main reason pornagraphy pornography is illegal is because its consumption can cause chronic spelling problems

 

Seriously, though, there could be reasons for both to be legal or illegal. Both are methods of exploiting human sexuality for profit, which has ethical problems. Other issues have been raised regarding each, though, which are not always the same. Some have also said that pornography provides a sexual outlet so that people don't engage in prostitution and other risky sexual activities. Andrea Dworkin said, I believe, that pornography is created and designed to promote and train men for rape, which she considered dominant sexual culture. Others have criticized Dworkin and claimed that some/many women may voluntarily participate in these sexual forms and that "rape" should only be used to refer to directly forced sexual contact and not to social-cultural coercion that causes women to feel responsible for pleasing men, for seeking sexual gratification within more economically-prosperous situations like marriages to successful providers and/or sex with men for direct monetary payment.

 

The big question is what happens to women when they choose to avoid all forms of cultural-compliance where sexuality is concerned? Is it possible for women to completely reject externally-imposed conditions for their sexuality and survive, and if so at what economic level?

 

No need to restate. Everyone knows that people who are posting on the most international platform there is (the Internet) without being aware that there is a rest of the world talk about the US

What do you do if you want to be a globalist by resisting defining culture in terms of national differences? Won't people just always accuse you of being US-centric for failing to acknowledge "other nations?" How do you assert anti-nationalist globalism if that's the perspective you want to take? (btw, I am going to repost this to a new thread).

 

 

[swansont]

Porn is a free speech matter, (partially) protected by the first amendment. Prostitution is commerce.

[lemur]

Porn is a free speech matter, (partially) protected by the first amendment. Prostitution is commerce.

Shouldn't free speech only protect non-commercial trading of media-products then? I.e. you should be able to make pornography and give it away, but once you start selling it, wouldn't it become prostitution?

[Doc. Josh]

ok, I understand that part swansont however the act of of performing, ( makiing the video ) how is that not considered prostitution? Its sex for payment. What guidline differs the two?

[Moontanman]

ok, I understand that part swansont however the act of of performing, ( makiing the video ) how is that not considered prostitution? Its sex for payment. What guidline differs the two?

 

 

The same way two people who pretend to be in love in a movie are not really in love but go through the motions to convince an audience, but you and others do raise good questions but those questions may soon be moot, CGI stills and films are so close to being real and getting closer all the time how will or does the idea of CGI fit into the idea of porn, prostitution and sex?

Edited May 20, 2011 by Moontanman

[swansont]

Shouldn't free speech only protect non-commercial trading of media-products then? I.e. you should be able to make pornography and give it away, but once you start selling it, wouldn't it become prostitution?

 

The act of paying cash is not usually the act resulting in physical gratification. YMMV

[lemur]

The same way two people who pretend to be in love in a movie are not really in love but go through the motions to convince an audience, but you and others do raise good questions but those questions may soon be moot, CGI stills and films are so close to being real and getting closer all the time how will or does the idea of CGI fit into the idea of porn, prostitution and sex?

Is pretending to be in love for money without engaging in sexual acts prostitution? If a married couple records themselves having sex and sells the footage, is that prostituting themselves?

 

btw, the word "pornography" actually means "prostitute writing," I believe. So "porno" does technically refer to prostitution.

 

 

 

[Edtharan]

One of the interesting things to note is that were prostitution is legal, the sex workers (both men and women - don't forget that there are male prostitutes just as there are males involved in pornography too) tend to have better conditions, higher wages, better health, less violence against them, better health, and many other benefits (including being able to leave if they want to).

 

It becomes regulated and is beholden to the society's basic human rights.

 

Instead of prostitution being a criminal activity, and thus being controlled by organised crime, it becomes a job, something that the workers do because they want to, not because they have no other choice.

[Moontanman]

Is pretending to be in love for money without engaging in sexual acts prostitution?

 

 

There are those who say yes to this question, like many things "what it is defined as" is in the eye of the beholder..... or judge?

 

 

If a married couple records themselves having sex and sells the footage, is that prostituting themselves?

 

 

Lemur, that question alone deserves pos rep dude, I can't answer it for sure....

 

 

btw, the word "pornography" actually means "prostitute writing," I believe. So "porno" does technically refer to prostitution.

 

 

So the erotic stroies i write are prostitution?

[lemur]

One of the interesting things to note is that were prostitution is legal, the sex workers (both men and women - don't forget that there are male prostitutes just as there are males involved in pornography too) tend to have better conditions, higher wages, better health, less violence against them, better health, and many other benefits (including being able to leave if they want to).

 

It becomes regulated and is beholden to the society's basic human rights.

 

Instead of prostitution being a criminal activity, and thus being controlled by organised crime, it becomes a job, something that the workers do because they want to, not because they have no other choice.

I've heard these arguments for legalizing prostitution or drugs many times. My question becomes why it is better for the state to become the pimp or dealer, instead of anyone else? Isn't the basic exploitation involved with selling and profiting off of addictive-pleasure the same, however it is regulated or taxed?

[Doc. Josh]

But on the same note lemur the gov taxs alcohol arguable that its just as bad as prostitution and drugs. So why the ok for one and demonized for other? So its not really turning the gov into pimps or dealers but they pick and choose what they feel is correct in society?

[imatfaal]

legalization does not equal nationalization

[Ophiolite]

I blame John Calvin.

[lemur]

But on the same note lemur the gov taxs alcohol arguable that its just as bad as prostitution and drugs. So why the ok for one and demonized for other? So its not really turning the gov into pimps or dealers but they pick and choose what they feel is correct in society?

I don't think it is. I think that, generally, you can promote tolerance for otherwise problematic commerce by convincing people that by legalizing and taxing it, you'll be able to defer taxation for other things. Basically the public is saying, "turn alcoholics/prostitutes/johns/drug-users/drug-dealers/etc. into slaves to the government so we can pay less taxes." It is very similar, imo, to the selling of indulgences that led the early protestants to rebel against the Catholic church.

 

Yet, on the other hand you can also argue that taxation is a handy way to punish users by increasing the cost they pay while funding government-generated interventions in the behavior and industries. There are arguments for both sides.

 

 

[Marat]

The word 'exploitation' often recurs in this discussion, but it is a loaded term which seeks illegitimately to decide the issue without arguing for it. You could just as easily ask whether serious poets are exploited by having to write greeting card rhymes for Hallmark when they would rather write Petrarchian sonnets, or university lecturers are exploited when they have to earn a living by lecturing to students who don't return their efforts by paying serious attention to the course, etc. What the special force of 'exploitation' conceals in all discussions about sexuality where it occurs is the basic, irrational, social disapproval of sex which cannot be explained and so has to be dramatized by characterizing every form of negotiation, transaction, and communication involving sex as 'exploitation.'

 

The issue can be clarified if we just generalize about what sex is so we can elevate to a sufficiently abstract level that it no longer sets off the socially-conditioned alarms associated with it. Thus sex is a basic physical need of humans, just like eating food. So just as ads about food do not shock the public conscience if publicly displayed, nor do shops selling food from one stranger to another outrage public decency, nor does selling food to minors incite police crackdowns, etc., so too there is no transcultural, objective, natural reasons for being in such a panic all the time about the social satisfaction of another basic human need like sex. We could create a social system in which it would be regarded as a matter of public scandal if people ever shared a meal together without being in love, or if people actually dared to exchange food for money, or even worse, do so in public, or in front of children!, but it is easy to see how such a system would just create unnecessary frustrations, restrictions, rituals, police actions, moralizing, criminalizations, and social disruptions. So why do we so automatically assume that all this trouble has to be created over the fulfillment of sexual needs? And even worse, why do we suppress even the possibility of a rational discussion of the costs and benefits of the universal sexual repression system which we now so expensively impose on our society?

[Moontanman]

I don't think it is. I think that, generally, you can promote tolerance for otherwise problematic commerce by convincing people that by legalizing and taxing it, you'll be able to defer taxation for other things. Basically the public is saying, "turn alcoholics/prostitutes/johns/drug-users/drug-dealers/etc. into slaves to the government so we can pay less taxes." It is very similar, imo, to the selling of indulgences that led the early protestants to rebel against the Catholic church.

 

 

So you are equating alcohol use as slavery? Where I live i have never seen anyone forced to buy alcohol, no one get robbed of his belongings or even his life due to purchasing alcohol. The main problem behind recreational drugs is the pushers or dealers, not the users, and pimps are the main driving force behind the ills of prostitution, with out pimps you no long have anyone being forced into prostitution, being held as virtual slaves who cannot stop for fear of being beaten senseless or to death. I never see any of this around a state run liquor store but during prohibition alcohol fueled an immense criminal empire that included all the same things as we see in other illegal activities you have mentioned.

 

Yet, on the other hand you can also argue that taxation is a handy way to punish users by increasing the cost they pay while funding government-generated interventions in the behavior and industries. There are arguments for both sides.

 

 

Taxes on a bottle of tequila is punishment? I really do not see the connections you are making... none of these people qualify as slaves to any one but the pushers and pimps, there are addicts who really cannot stop but it's the contact with criminals to obtain their "drug" of choice that puts them in harms way and fills the coffers of criminals who pay no taxes and have no problems selling to anyone regardless of age or situation...

[DJBruce]

Shouldn't free speech only protect non-commercial trading of media-products then? I.e. you should be able to make pornography and give it away, but once you start selling it, wouldn't it become prostitution?

 

No, the Constitution does not delineate between various types of speech. However, the Supreme Court has ruled that certain classes of speech such as Commercial Speech are subject to different levels of protection, but the selling of speech that is protect by the Constitution is still full protect. For example, if you did not want to extend freedom of speech to commercial then hypothetically the government could censor art work if it was sold at an art gallery. Personally, I don't think that whether something is sold or not should affect whether that speech is protected or not.

 

If a married couple records themselves having sex and sells the footage, is that prostituting themselves?

 

 

I would say that definitively it would not be prostitution. The thing to note is that the couple is not directly selling sex. They are just selling a movie, which would assuming it passes the Miller test be consider protected under the Constitution.

 

Ethically, I see very few differences between prostitution and pornography, however, laws are not founded upon ethics alone, and I believe that the complete legalization of prostitution poses numerous issues, which do not arise with pornography. So I do completely understand how although ethically they might be similar we outlaw prostitution because we feel that the issues it brings are not worth dealing with.

 

 

[Marat]

U.S. constitutional law, because it has such long historical roots, had to adopt the rather artificial move of assuming that freedom of speech does not necessarily protect pornography, which it does treat as a different kind of speech. Still, it often winds up permitting more extreme pornographic manifestations than other countries do, just because of its traditions favoring individual liberty.

 

Canada makes an interesting contrast to the U.S. in several ways on this issue. Prostitution itself is legal, although people's free speech and free association rights relating to prostitution can be restricted. Thus it is a crime to communicate with someone for purposes of prostitution in a public place, so the free speech right is limited in this case even though it is being used for a legal purpose. Ridiculous, I know, but that's what happens when a jurisdiction finds itself stranded between the liberalism of the 1970s and today's political correctness, feminism, communitarianism, etc.

 

Even though prostitution is legal in Canada, pornography is for some reason much more restricted than in the U.S., since the Supreme Court has been largely taken over by radical feminism. Thus even though pornographic expression is in principle covered by the Canadian free speech right, it can be restricted because of the harm it probably causes to women's empowerment throughout society -- even though the court admitted that there was no proof that pornography has this effect (R. v. Butler). So a constitutionally entrenched human right of free expression can be limited to avoid a harm whch can't even be proved!