What is the legal difference btw porn and prostitution

I’ve wondered this for ages. How the heck does me paying a hooker to have sex with me differ from some producer paying two ‘actors’ to have sex with each other?

This article raises exactly the same question:

…however…

The article discusses the distinction at length, and I’ll let you check out the conclusion for yourself.

The legal line between porn and prostitution

I’ve always considered paid porn “actors” to be prostitutes. :idunno:

One is performed live and the other is previously recorded?

A camera.

800 Baht.

My body, my right.

I’ve never understood how some people can ignore the glaring contradiction in supporting abortion rights by that logic, yet refusing to support a woman’s right to do what she pleases with her body when it comes to sex.

I also don’t understand the morality that it’s OK to get drunk in a sleazy bar and bang some anonymous stranger (like half the men and women in North America and Western Europe have done at least once at one point or the other), but if any money changes hands, you’re a whore. At least prostitutes use condoms. That’s more than I can say for the tarts you can pick up at 3 A.M. in the Orient for free.

On edit: the Orient is a dance club in Tainan. I wasn’t referring to the Orient in general.

I’m thinking that the fee gets paid by the producer to the actors. Both the actors get paid to have sex. In California it’s illegal for them to have sex with the producer, who is paying for it all. Maybe being a porn star is something like your friend giving you a cash gift as well as paying a girl to do it with you. But then he goes and films the whole thing and makes a bunch of money off you two (or three). What a capitalist slimebag!

The drug deal analogy is wrong, too. It’s not illegal to have sex, and it’s not illegal to have sex in front of a camera, but it’s illegal to be in possession of drugs whether there’s a camera there or not. In the case of pornography, the money is for the right to the actors’ images having sex, not for them to have sex in the first place. The difficulty on the author of that article seems to be that he can’t imagine two people would have sex that’s not for money.

A camera. A “producer”.

And a fluffer.

Can you pick up a fluffer at 3am at the Orient on a week night? That could be interesting.

HG