Thursday, August 28, 2008
The philosophy of prostitution
I read an interesting comment (that I of course can't find any more) on the Stranger's blog ("slog") that I hadn't thought about before: What's the difference between making an adult film and prostitution? Seriously. You pay someone to have sex when you make an adult film. How is that different than prostitution? Just because you're not paying them to have sex with _you_? Does that mean if I pay someone to have sex with my friend, and my friend pays someone else to have sex with me, then it's not prostitution?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
8 comments:
Only if you film it. Once you film it, it's protected art. I thought that was obvious.
What if I paint it later?
ah, you've discovered our little secret...
and yeah, pretty much.
http://randazza.wordpress.com/2008/03/18/why-is-prostitution-illegal-but-pornography-is-not/
the person paying isn't getting direct sexual gratification from the performer. i think it's why strippers aren't prostitutes -- since there's ostensibly no touchy touchy.
...and what if the director gets off on the filming? :)
Just seems like such an arbitrary line. Then again, making prostitution illegal is stupid in the first place. Did you know prostitution is essentially legal in Canada? I learned this recently...(I have a lot of free time waiting for my experiments to run...see xkcd)
it's an especially arbitrary line when you start thinking about those giant gang bang movies wherein "volunteers" line up to have sex with one woman in some sort of marathon fashion....
Oh, that's just efficiency...
I'm sorry. What kind of movies are those again?
there was a world record, i think, some years back.
see also: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_World%27s_Biggest_Gang_Bang
Post a Comment