Porn or prostitution?

Guy:Incognito

Not sure if this belongs here or where. Theres a program on C4 now about people leaving their jobs to start out in the porn industry. Theres a woman who sent pictures of. an agency rang her and set up a meeting with two men. shes meeeting them in a tran station and they are going to take her to an address that she hasnt been told yet. Shes getting £300 to be filmed having sex. They have said the film is for their own private use.

What is the difference between this and prostitution? Where exactly are the lines?

LadyJ

Beats me! Jesus,gotta see that!

Only Human

Stekelly wrote:

Not sure if this belongs here or where. Theres a program on C4 now about people leaving their jobs to start out in the porn industry. Theres a woman who sent pictures of. an agency rang her and set up a meeting with two men. shes meeeting them in a tran station and they are going to take her to an address that she hasnt been told yet. Shes getting £300 to be filmed having sex. They have said the film is for their own private use.

What is the difference between this and prostitution? Where exactly are the lines?

The camera.

LadyJ

Prostitution becomes porn when fimed though I guess!

Guy:Incognito

LadyJ wrote:

Prostitution becomes porn when fimed though I guess!

Can't see the guards agreeing with that if the catch you in the car with your camcorderand a brasser.

LadyJ

Stekelly wrote:

Can't see the guards agreeing with that if the catch you in the car with your camcorderand a brasser.

I know,tell me about it!

Ro: maaan!

Oh LadyJ, You are too much!

LadyJ

Ro: maaan! wrote:

Oh LadyJ, You are too much!

You know you love it Ro!

skye

prostitution & porn are much the same if you ask me. Porn is prostitution - does the fact that it is filmed make it any different? Money is exchanged for the act of sex - the lines are blurred in the porn industry to make it appear "acceptable" - don't get me wrong - not against good porn - quite enjoy it and it's good for a healthy sex-life, each to their own I guess. Depends where you stand on the argument.

Kernel

Stekelly wrote:

Not sure if this belongs here or where. Theres a program on C4 now about people leaving their jobs to start out in the porn industry. Theres a woman who sent pictures of. an agency rang her and set up a meeting with two men. shes meeeting them in a tran station and they are going to take her to an address that she hasnt been told yet. Shes getting £300 to be filmed having sex. They have said the film is for their own private use.

What is the difference between this and prostitution? Where exactly are the lines?

Watched that program myself, was pretty disturbing really when you think about it. I thought there was more of a difference myself, but really there isn't, especially when you look at the ****ty money the girls were paid. They were also treated like absolute ****, and even slightly forced into doing some things against their will (at the very least they were pressured).

The girl in question was a bit of a tragic case IMO. She was married to a guy for one thing! She gets brought to a house, ****ed and filmed for 8 hours getting roasted by 3 guys, sucking their cocks, ATM (ass to mouth), DP every kind of **** imaginable. Then she gets 300 quid and away with her. She seemed happy enough at the end, probably because she was a slag, or stupid, or both.... Would you like your wife/girlfriend or even daughter to do some **** like that?!?

Makes me look at porn in a different way though - it's a lot sleazier than the slick porn barons would lead you to believe.

sprinkles

Kernel wrote:

Makes me look at porn in a different way though - it's a lot sleazier than the slick porn barons would lead you to believe.

I don't know, my local porn baron seems like a very nice guy

sprinkles

Damn it, TBH when I saw the thread I though I'd be giving someone career advice. Oh well.

seamus

Cleary not an AH issue. Moved.

Zombrex

Stekelly wrote:

What is the difference between this and prostitution? Where exactly are the lines?

Well I think technically the idea is that neither the guy or the girl having sex are the ones paying for it. They are both supposed to be paid for being "actors" in the film.

But I think the lines get very blurred if the guy (or girl) having sex is also the one paying for the film. Then it is really just prostitution with the guy making a movie out of it for himself.

I didn't see the program but what was the girl like who took part? Was she thinking quick way to make £300 or did she think this was going to be something that would launch a career or something. I saw a program about porn before on either the BBC or Channel 4 and the girls in it came off as incredably niaeve.

Sleepy

TBH, I don't see any difference between porn and prostitution. The camera hardly makes the act of being paid to have sex any more classy does it? In fact, when you think about it, there's probably more class in the call girl who arrives at a hotel, performs a service and leaves discreetly with a few quid in her purse.

To quote the great Bill Hicks: "What business is it of yours what I do, read, buy, see or take into my body as long as I don't harm another human being whilst on this planet?". I think this is exactly the same thing tbh. If a woman is prepared to do a three way for a couple of hundred pounds, that's her choice. If she's stupid enough to allow someone to pressure her into doing things she doesn't want to do for that money, that's her own tough luck. We all learn from our mistakes.

Why bother trying to classify porn and prostitution as two seperate things? Maybe they are, maybe they aren't. What difference does it make? At the end of the day, both should be legal and regulated (regular STD checks, ensuring that the men/women involved are doing so of their own free will etc).

If the short-sighted moral majority want to prevent the horrors of sex-trafficking, they only have to legalise and legislate the already thriving sex industry in this world. As it is, they're turning a blind eye to a black market being run by criminal thugs who are potentially putting the girls, their clients and the public at large in danger while earning small fortunes to be used in other criminal activities (drug running etc).

The Corinthian

Traditionally prostitution has been criminalized on a point of morality, typically religiously based, and pimps are still charged on the basis of their ‘immoral earnings’. Ultimately this school of thought argues that sex for money is immoral and should be criminalised, while conversely in modern Society prostitution is largely opposed on the basis that it encourages exploitation of women.

As a sideline, some feminist theorists argue, pointing to religious prostitution in ancient Mesopotamia, that the criminalisation of prostitution was an attempt by men to control women who were able to use sex as currency within Society - but this is another debate, TBH.

That pornography slightly differs to classic prostitution is simply a fudge used by both the porn industry and Society so as to escape the legal net. Ultimately pornography is essentially prostitution in that it is sex for money and can be viewed as ‘immoral’ as prostitution. Additionally exploitation of women takes place in the porn industry.

Of course, is it right or wrong? The porn industry is not the only one to exploit people or treat them as human resources and the issue of sex for money is questionable as well if you consider the number of kept women (and men) out there. Ultimately the bottom line is whether engaging in sexual acts for payment is immoral to the point that it should be criminalized - if not it simply becomes a question of regulation and education, just like any other industry.

RuggieBear

I watched it and was absolutely shocked. I always assumed that the "actors" got decent money...why else put yourself in such pain and bodily risk. Just seemed so exploitative. And then the woman drove of in a porche...she (or the hubby) must have been earning decent money to have one of those so why earn a pittance doing porn :eek:

There was a program on last night about a HIV incident within the porn industry in LA that nearly had myself and my girlfriend in tears....some poor canadian girl got infected in practically her first job...and then got shunned by the industry.

rubadub

Kernel wrote:

****ed and filmed for 8 hours getting roasted by 3 guys, sucking their cocks, ATM (ass to mouth), DP every kind of **** imaginable. Then she gets 300 quid and away with her. .

Yeah 8 hours hard labour for under £40 an hour. She would be better off just being a normal unfilmed whore. It seems she doesn't consider herself a prostitue if it is being filmed. The first 2 guys were filming her for their own use, a normal prostitute would have charged more for being screwed by 2 guys alone and charged more again for filming (so my granny tells me), she is either an idiot or just fooling herself that she is a "star".
The terminology was brilliant the narrator saying she was "spit roasted, doggied and cowgirled". I'll never look at an ATM machine without a grin now.

The other girl had it pretty easy, piss your pants for £250, she didn't even show anything. I'd **** my own pants for €10 and a bag o chips!

seamus

RuggieBear wrote:

I watched it and was absolutely shocked. I always assumed that the "actors" got decent money...why else put yourself in such pain and bodily risk. Just seemed so exploitative. And then the woman drove of in a porche...she (or the hubby) must have been earning decent money to have one of those so why earn a pittance doing porn :eek:

A woman can get paid well and have a relatively long career. Men, not so well (there are so many lining up), and their careers are normally shorter (with the obvious exceptions).

There was a program on last night about a HIV incident within the porn industry in LA that nearly had myself and my girlfriend in tears....some poor canadian girl got infected in practically her first job...and then got shunned by the industry.

Yeah, that was a bit mad. There's a very good article about the whole incident on www.wikipedia.org. Seems that one male actor made an obviously dumb mistake, and ruined a few people's lives.

RuggieBear

seamus wrote:

A woman can get paid well and have a relatively long career. Men, not so well (there are so many lining up), and their careers are normally shorter (with the obvious exceptions).

Aye but not this woman....
She was 38 and had seemingly just started. I mean she was an attractive lady but she was never going to be the next Jenna Jaminson or whoever and she also wouldn't have (do) anal sex. The other actress did and only got an extra £50!!!! I suppose i'm just shocked at the small sums of money involved. Maybe it's just the small scale british (porn) industry...Can only assume that the big name american porn stars are on good money.

Yeah, that was a bit mad. There's a very good article about the whole incident on www.wikipedia.org. Seems that one male actor made an obviously dumb mistake, and ruined a few people's lives.

I beleive there was another case of a male pornstar who kept working while he had HIV....think it was a while back and was one of the reasons that Pornstar clinic was set up.

EDIT: here is that article on the poor candian girl
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lara_Roxxx

Commissar

I saw some of both those shows on C4.
Iirc the older of the two women on last nights Diary of a Pornstar show was earning £50,000 sterling a year after 15 years managment experience, was married and had a 12 year old daughter.
Personally I was amazed that she would dream of becoming a porn-star. Granted she might not have had much job satisfaction before this but to think that pron could give her such satisfaction is unbelievable.
in any case she didn't make it. I missed a good portion of the show but at the end I she was in tears. Apparently she plans to create a website of errotic photos.

It was allready mentioned, I know, but I was even more amazed that the asian girl, Sahara, was paid £250 for pissing herself 3 times on webcam. :eek: I can't believe people were actually paying money to see that on-line.

edit: I was just reading about Lana Roxx on those links and it occured to me that pornstar must be one of the most inaccurate ways of describing those women.

Sleepy

Another interesting point is that many of the women see *themselves* as prostitutes as much as pornstars. Sunset Thomas would be the most famous of these women. She's worked in (and I believe now owns a share of) the infamous bunny ranch out in Nevada.

magpie

Its hard to feel sorry for someone called Lara Roxx

RuggieBear

magpie wrote:

Its hard to feel sorry for someone called Lara Roxx

That's pretty offensive

magpie

It's also hard to feel sorry for someone that

planned to retire after an expected short stint in the industry just to build up a nest-egg.

through

a double-anal penetration scene with James and another actor

If you lie down with dogs, you get fleas. And its not like she was forced to do it through poverty. It was just a get-rich-quick scheme.

RuggieBear

while i don't agree with you...i see where you are coming from... i think.

Zombrex

magpie wrote:

If you lie down with dogs, you get fleas. And its not like she was forced to do it through poverty. It was just a get-rich-quick scheme.

I read a very good article in response to attitudes like this on the blog of an independent film maker in LA (not a porn film maker).

Basically he pointed out that if you wish to make an film in LA, for every location you film you need about 4 cops, a health and safety inspector, a firemarshel and a stunt co-ordinator for every 5 stunt men or something.

Basically 5-8 people looking after the well being of the people involved in the shoot before you even have done anything. He also singled out the stunt men. You have to have fire officers and safter personel from the state watching over all the stunt men to make sure they don't take any risks and are protected at all times. They cannot volunteer or be pressured into doing something dangerous because the movie would simply be shut down by the safety inspectors

If you are making a porn movie, involving very risky and dangerous acts such as double anal penentration you need absolutly no one to be present while filming. No one looks after the actors at all, no one is present to stop them, willingly or under-pressure, doing something dangerous and stupid.

I read and interview with Lara Roxx (which isn't her real name btw) in which she said she believed that the porn industry was perfectly safe and that the actors would be cleaner than normal folk. Now you can say that is very stupid of her, but she was a 19 year old girl, and she wouldn't have expected that an industry would be allowed get a way with the health and safety risks that the porn industry does.

There needs to be proper regulation in LA, but so far in the increasingly conservative and religious no one will touch that issue with a barge pool in case they look like they are supporting porn.

pickarooney

Wouldn't it be against the law, though, to have sex for money in front of a cop?

Zombrex

pickarooney wrote:

Wouldn't it be against the law, though, to have sex for money in front of a cop?

No more or less than to have sex for money not infront of a cop

magpie

Porn in 'not safe' shocker.

Gurgle

my 2c:
None of the participants is actually paying for sex - It's not prostitution

Assuming working 5 days a week, with bank holidays off and 20 days annual leave - thats equivalent to a salary of €69k.

Thats not bad at all for a job where the only qualification required is willingness.