Group Question - Why is Prostitution Illegal, but making a Porno legal?

[Displaced Bama Fan]

I saw this posted on another site and thought the question was actually interesting. Both the hooker and the actress/actor are getting paid to have sex. Thoughts?

 

[bamanut_aj]

I saw this posted on another site and thought the question was actually interesting. Both the hooker and the actress/actor are getting paid to have sex. Thoughts?

probably boils down to taxes. Prostitutes on the street don't pay any taxes, actors and actresses do, in theory.

 

[Displaced Bama Fan]

probably boils down to taxes. Prostitutes on the street don't pay any taxes, actors and actresses do, in theory.

I've posted this before...legalize prostitution. Tax it, require them to get licenses (revenue for the municipality), require quarterly physicals - trickle down economics and employment for those in the medical profession...who would also pay taxes.

Reduces the need for "vice-squads" or they can be moved to deal with true criminal activity as opposed to some seeking some "companionship."

 

[Tidewater]

I saw this posted on another site and thought the question was actually interesting. Both the hooker and the actress/actor are getting paid to have sex. Thoughts?

Interesting question.
If I were to engage the services of a woman of questionable virtue to perform, and I have Slab videotape the "performance," and the cops bust in, can I say, as my defense, that I was only making a film?

 

[bamanut_aj]

Interesting question.
If I were to engage the services of a woman of questionable virtue to perform, and I have Slab videotape the "performance," and the cops bust in, can I say, as my defense, that I was only making a film?

bad idea....the video is too shaky when Slab films it.

 

[gmart74]

it absolutely goes back to the ability of the gov to tax and regulate it.

why do we allow cigarettes and alcohol but not marijuana?

why do we allow people to abuse prescriptions and get wired out of their gourd on every pharmaceutical known to mankind but everything you can grow or make in your basement is illegal.

if the gov can make money off of it then they allow it. if they cant then they outlaw it. it has nothing to do with morals or anything else. it is simply revenue.

 

[ValuJet]

It's just the ins and out of the business.

Somebody had to start it

 

[RammerJammer14]

I saw this posted on another site and thought the question was actually interesting. Both the hooker and the actress/actor are getting paid to have sex. Thoughts?

It is obviously due to sexual descrimination. Prostitutes are generaly businesswomen, while porno makers are generaly businessmen. Except in Vegas

 

[uafan4life]

I saw this posted on another site and thought the question was actually interesting. Both the hooker and the actress/actor are getting paid to have sex. Thoughts?

Hmm, interesting question.

1) I would assume there's some sort of legal loophole with making a film that it's up to the actor/actress whether or not to actually have sex during the sex-scene.

2) It could have something to do with where it is filmed. If it was filmed in Nevada, where prostitution is legal, then it doesn't matter. Same goes for filmed in another country. At that point the question is the legality of distributing such pornographic material. In this case, adult porno is okay but it's illegal to distribute, or even have in your possession, child pornography.

3) It's, in theory, easier to track and tax movies rather than people.


I think that, if you're going to legalize prostitution, that it should be treated as and restricted to standard business practices. That is that both the business and the contractors (hookers) be licensed and subject to health inspections (that sounds funny ) and that transaction take place in the place of business only. This way street prostitution and the dangers and such associated with it would still be illegal.

Of course, this means that there would be a paper trail for the businesses and make it less anonymous. That really hasn't hurt Nevada's sex industry, though.

 

[Bamaro]

bad idea....the video is too shaky when Slab films it.

Holding the camera with one hand?:eek2:

 

[92tide]

if the gov can make money off of it then they allow it. if they cant then they outlaw it. it has nothing to do with morals or anything else. it is simply revenue.

that doesn't really make a lot of sense. the gov't could just as easily tax illegal drugs or prostitution the way they do booze and tobacco (i won't go into the details like licking and placing stamps )

just like blue laws, laws against certain sex acts and *ahem* marital aids *ahem*, etc., i think it had everything to do with "morals"

 

[AlistarWills]

that doesn't really make a lot of sense. the gov't could just as easily tax illegal drugs or prostitution the way they do booze and tobacco (i won't go into the details like licking and placing stamps )

just like blue laws, laws against certain sex acts and *ahem* marital aids *ahem*, etc., i think it had everything to do with "morals"

isn't there a tax on marijuana? I thought tax evasion was always one of the charges when arrested for selling dope. You can't legally sell it, but if you do, you need to pay the proper taxes. But if you pay the taxes, they get you for selling it...

 

[bamanut_aj]

Holding the camera with one hand?:eek2:

si.

 

[gmart74]

that doesn't really make a lot of sense. the gov't could just as easily tax illegal drugs or prostitution the way they do booze and tobacco (i won't go into the details like licking and placing stamps )

i f they can tax it just as easily then why dont they.

i think it had everything to do with "morals"

please explain the moral difference between the mood altering drug marijuana and the mood altering drug paxil.

just bc they claim it is morals doesnt mean that even they believe that is the reason.

 

[92tide]

i f they can tax it just as easily then why dont they.



please explain the moral difference between the mood altering drug marijuana and the mood altering drug paxil.

just bc they claim it is morals doesnt mean that even they believe that is the reason.

because it is illegal. several states are apparently now considering taxing weed to raise revenue

i didnt say the moral argument was correct or logical, but you cant deny that it is underpinning all of these things.

your argument that these things are illegal just because government cant make money off of them still does not make any sense

 

[RamJamHam]

I think I understand what you are saying, but you are mistaken if you think profits from the sale of marijuana and other illegal substances is not subject to federal income taxes. In fact, I am sure most of us are aware that the only charge Al Capone was ever convicted of was tax evasion, based on his failure to pay taxes on profits from the sale of illegal whiskey during Prohibition.

 

[It's On A Slab]

bad idea....the video is too shaky when Slab films it.

I sold all my interests in Slab Films before the tech bubble collapsed.

I'm just a poor dirt herb farmer. No more, no less.

 

[ValuJet]

I sold all my interests in Slab Films before the tech bubble collapsed.

I'm just a poor dirt herb farmer. No more, no less.

I can attest that some of Slab's films contained some of the most disgusting filth I've ever laid eyes on.

 

[LCN]

Holding the camera with one hand?:eek2:

Well done


Is it solved if we just make a porn with a hooker ? 2 birds with one stone ?

 

[Pluck and Grit]

because it is illegal. several states are apparently now considering taxing weed to raise revenue

i didnt say the moral argument was correct or logical, but you cant deny that it is underpinning all of these things.

your argument that these things are illegal just because government cant make money off of them still does not make any sense

Some years ago, AL passed a law requiring that marijuana sellers place tax stamps on their packages of weed. The stamps were made available at the post office. I don't know how that has worked out, or if the stamps are still availabe. I'd imagine the law is still on the books.

The issue of sex on film is generally treated by the courts as a 1st Amendment issue. There have been a whole slew of court cases about it, and when the court rules in favor of the pornographers (which in my memory is the majority of the time), they almost invariably (still, according to my memory) cite the 1st Amendment and the distribution of the film as a "speech" issue.

So evidently grunting and moaning is free speech too.