Prostitution/Pornography

[gim73]

Meh, perhaps I'm a bit jaded, but ALL women charge you money for sex. Prostitutes are just considerate enough to make it guarenteed and give you a set price. Yes, the US made it illegal in all but a few counties of Nevada, which is damn silly, but it's not the only silly law we still have.

Most US states still have laws that prevent you from eating ice cream on sunday... I'm not saying they ENFORCE this crap, but it's still on the books. Just a byproduct of a time when the christain majority felt it okay to make implied morality into law (which makes us no better than islamic states).

 

[SextusMaximus]

Arguing with Rules and Laws is like arguing with a troll - they always have some corrupt but relatively agreeable reason for being as they are, and no matter how much you argue, they aren't going to change.

So yes, your point certainly makes sense, as a lot of other points do, but frankly - are you going to achieve anything from that? Certainly an interesting thought but the most that's going to happen is either Porn and Prostitution is banned or prostitution is made legal, that's if you even get it into the sight of the 'big important politician's eyes' and even then, the former of the options is more likely.

 

[Altorin]

it's because pornography is basically speech, and speech is free of laws.

It's the same reason it's illegal for a woman to go topless in the streets, unless she's protesting that it's illegal for her to go topless in the streets.

chew on that one for a while..

Only in America can you go to jail for charing for something you can give away for free.

"Selling is legal, fucking is legal... why isn't selling fucking legal?"

 

[Sightless Wisdom]

Well I live in Canada. Prostitution is legal here...In the case of U.S I say your laws are confused and a little bit ironic.

Where I live in Canada, it is certainly illegal.

I'm sorry...you're wrong? Prostitution is legal in Canada while public solicitation is not. Unless of course the laws differ from province to province.

 

[riskroWe]

Yeah it'd have to be a three-party agreement. Persons A and B to have sex, and person C is hired by person A to film the performance and pay both of them. Person A would be payed the exact same amount that he hired person C for, while person B would be given a much larger payment, since he/she would be otherwise unwilling.

That is prostitution on tape. Nice and legal.

 

[TheRundownRabbit]

Actually I thought of something else. The legal age of consent is 16 in the UK, but 18 for watching porn.

So sex with your eyes closed then? And then no prostitution/pseudo porno vids for you.

THAT is something I have thought LONG AND HARD about. It really makes no sense.

HaH! Long and hard

Isnt prostitution legal in Reno

 

[Therumancer]

When it comes to Canada (and other nations) with legalized prostitution, one has to consider that even the most free of these nations do not have the same level of freedoms and protections as the USA which makes things somewhat easier.

Come again? America has more laws and regulation than any other country in the World. You could argue that these laws are potentially protecting freedoms, rather than reducing them, but then again, America also has the largest prison population in the World. Granted, there are probably many social, cultural and economic reasons for this being the case, so it would be unjust for me to attribute America's crime problems entirely to its legal system.

America does not necessarily have more freedoms and protection than a lot of countries. It is far too complicated to try and measure individual countries for this kind of thing (though there are surveyors who try). Just citing individual examples like "Canadian blank warrants" will not do. As it happens, the one legal issue that bothers me the most in my own country (the UK) is libel. In the UK, libel laws are extremely strict - to the point where celebrities (the most recent notable case being Tiger Woods) can hang out in the UK just to prevent more severely negative press. Of all the legal issues in the UK, I think this is the most serious, as it runs the risk of crippling freedom of the press.

It's also noteworthy that the US's system which FUNCTIONS on a principle of "innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt" in criminal matters is very unusual. It gives criminals a lot more rights. and ties the hands of the goverment a lot more, than most other nations including very free ones that are similar to the US. Some other nations use the same terminology but in practice typically operate more on a system relying on a "preponderance of evidence" (which is a lower standard in the US used for civil matters). That is to say that if it's very likely someone is guilty in other nations like Canada he will be convited. In the US simply being very likely is not enough.

As far as I know, UK courts are required to prove "beyond reasonable doubt" and that juries must be "sure of guilt". Returning to the nature of "freedoms and protections", one could argue that granting courts the ability to convict someone based on the preponderance of evidence allows for more convictions of likely criminals, thus taking dangerous criminals of the street. One has to balance this with the potential danger of a miscarriage of justice (i.e. convicting someone who looks like the likely perpertrator, when in fact they are innocent and just in the wrong place at the wrong time). Does the system protect enough people to outweigh the potential damage to freedom? The issue is too complex to discus within the scope of this kind of thread.

However overall, I think those systems are a lot more likely to throw innocent people in jail. The basic attitude in the US being that we'd rather let a guilty person go free, than see an innocent punished. In Canada and the UK they tend to be content with simply making sure they get it right the majority of the time.

That comes across as a gross generalisation, and as far as I know, isn't the slightest bit accurate.

Actually while I can understand how national pride influances people not to like what they hear me saying here, especially seeing as many nations tell their people how free they are when they are not and many of them believe it.

In my case while I admit it was quite a while ago, I learned about this kind of thing formally and it was explained in great detail at times how specific nations differ from the US ideals and what they do instead. The number of laws is ultimatly irrelevent since it's all about what those laws actually do, as you pointed out yourself a lot of the laws and precedents in the US actually exist to specifically limit the goverment and authority.

A good example of the above for example is that you point out how in the UK the standard exists based on the Jury being "sure of guilt" this is not the case in the US. In the US whether the Jury thinks someone is guilty is supposed to be irrelevent, with the Jury being specifically instructed to vote on the Law as it exists, rather than their personal interpetation or beliefs based on the evidence. Of course in practice it proves nearly impossible to divorce people from individual opinions.

Thus in the US you see people who are guilty as sin going free in cases because of some legal technicality based on an order of evidence, or a reasonable doubt existing purely in a technical sense. This is not the case to this extent in other nations.

It's pretty much a fact that the US is the most free country on earth. However if you wanted to argue other systems specifically it can be pointed out that this is not nessicarly a good thing. I myself have felt that we could learn a lot from other nations like the UK and Canada in adjusting our system because I feel a lot of our problems are a result of that freedom. You look at the US rates of violent crime, murder, rape, and other things and we're usually pretty far up there compared to other relatively free nations.

It's also noteworthy that people scream and yell about things like profiling, and "The patriot act" but in reality for all the screaming about "Nazism" (without people understanding much about it) a lot of other nations we do not consider to be oppressive do the same things, or even worse, as a matter of course. Blank Warrents being one example, as are other things like comparitive laws involving police searches and chain of evidence.

Indeed one of the obstacles hurting the spread of US culture (which goes beyond this discussion) is simply that when we talk about other nations embracing freedom, that freedom also comes at the cost of safety that other nations might enjoy. Sure technically a lot of people might want some of these freedoms, but at the same time they want their kids to be able to walk the streets in comparitive safety....

 

[ShatteredBlack]

-snip-

Just to let you know, if you click on the blue 'quote' button under the post you want to reply to, the forum will automatically copy their post into the reply box, plus some HTML that'll make their quote come in a nice box like above.

On topic, that does seem like a rediculous loophole - is prostitution itself banned where you're from, or just the public solicitation of sex?

 

[reg42]

Prostitution is legal, if you're with a licensed agency, so that point is null.

 

[JEBWrench]

Only in America can you go to jail for charing for something you can give away for free.

Really?

So, you can sell alcohol in any other country without a license?

 

[Hiphophippo]

Only in America can you go to jail for charing for something you can give away for free.

Really?

So, you can sell alcohol in any other country without a license?

You heard me. Loophole be damned. The point still stands regardless.

 

[MR T3D]

It would still be illegal. As much as people love to bash lawmakers, they have the benefit of teams of lawyers that gained experience scouring over laws to find loopholes for their clients to exploit. One that large and that obvious is not going to slip by the Justice system, especially when large escort services have already tried to exploit it.

BUUTTT
if they prostitute had the client prepare paperwork to be in a porno...
then it'd work.
nothing sexier than paperwork for foreplay...

Prostitution has historically been defined as a person paying another for sex acts involving themselves.

Pornography involves a third party paying two people to have sex with each other so that that third party, or other fourth parties may watch.

Recording the event is irrelevant.

but if it is sold to a 3rd party (pimp) whom in turn sells the tape to the client as the product of a transaction, the money from which is distributed between the 'crew' of the 'movie' (pimp, ho)
a little complex, few oops in the loophole.
but i know my loopholes.

 

[Doug]

I'm not sure what the exact law on prostitution is in the UK. I think its 'legalish' because its a convoluted mess.

I wish they'd just make it legal, license legal brothels, let women be save from pyschopaths, let the clients be safe from STDs, and overall make things better (Though the women would likely have to pay income tax).

As for the idea... It might work if your trying to skirt around US law, though I doubt many clients are willing to be filmed with a prostitue. Depends on what restrictions there are on the porn industry.

 

[JEBWrench]

but if it is sold to a 3rd party (pimp) whom in turn sells the tape to the client as the product of a transaction, the money from which is distributed between the 'crew' of the 'movie' (pimp, ho)
a little complex, few oops in the loophole.
but i know my loopholes.

As well as the purchaser. In your example, the pimp would have to pay the client as well in order to be protected under the first amendment. As well as have a tax ID number.

And the crew must have the legally stated right of refusal while still getting payment. Because otherwise, it falls under the realm of prostitution.

Y'all do realize that this "loophole" has been tried several times in court, right?

 

[Vendayn]

I haven't looked at the law in california...but since cali is a highly religious state, I already know prostitution is illegal here.

Laws here for the most part, don't really matter to me anyway. I had beer when I was 14 (I went to England/UK to visit family), so the 21 age limit in the US didn't matter to me at the time. And since I'm 21 now, I don't need to go to england for beer And I went up to Canada when I was 18 to visit friends, and got my first time I was hoping to get it on with a girlfriend, but I definitely wasn't gonna be a 40 year old virgin...so one of my friends hired a prostitute for me, and since its legal up there...

So how to skip your countries/state laws? Go to a county where its legal If you can that is, I know a lot of young people (and even some adults) can't just get up and go to a different country.

But for the topic... anything I think about it has already been said pretty much...if it was legal, it would be a lot safer for women who want to get in that line of work.

But keep in mind, a lot of Christians (and other religious people) and what not live in the US (at least in California)...nothing against them or anything, but many I know are against that kinda thing...but the US finds nudity/porn/sex/prostitution worse than kids watching heads being blown off in movies/tv shows and games. Which is a lot worse than nudity. As soon as a nipple comes out, parents go crazy. The US is backwards when it comes to that.

 

[Soxafloppin]

The guy poking for her isnt getting paid by her, i think thats it.

 

[Jindrak]

Sex: The only thing that is completely legal to give away, yet illegal to sell.
-George Carlin

 

[TheDoctor455]

Umm...
I don't really care.
It doesn't really affect me that much (or at all, for that matter).
Umm... why did I post here again?

 

[teisjm]

Well, both are legal in Denmark, but i can see a difference between the 2. Not saying one is better than the other, but this may make a difference in someone elses eyes.

A prostitute sells herself (or himself) to the people she has sex with.

A pornstar sells her/himself to have sex with anotehr pornstar, hence no-one is paying to fuck anyone, people are paying all participants to fuck eachther, so all the fuckers are proffesionals, and none of them are costumers, the cosumers are wankers.

Then theres the borderline cases, where some pornstars have figured, that they can make more money if they cast their fans as the male pornstars, and let them pay, to fuck them on film, which they then makes money off of.

theres also amateur porn where real couples film themsleves having "real" sex, and then sell it.

I think both things should be (reamain the the case of Denmark wher ei live) legal. The prostitutes should be required to have a certificate, in order for it to be legal, which would basicly require that they paid taxes of whatever they amde and had regular STD tests, and if they we're infected needed to be cured to get them renewed.
This would help fight forced prostitution (sex slaves) and maybe help fight STD infected whores.
if the prostitute is seen as a criminal, they will stand ina bad possition, where they can't seke help from the law, and is easier abused. This will not stop prostituion the slightest, it'll just make life worse for teh prostitutes, who are supposed to be the victims in teh first place.
If they're legal, they have the law on their side, and can sefely call the cops if someone tried to hurt them, they can keep off dark streets in bad neigborhoods, and work at bigegr, safer and better organized whore-houses.

I don't think anyone have or should have the right to buy sex, but peopel should have teh right to sell their bodies (sex) to whoever wants to buy it.

 

[JemJar]

Actually I thought of something else. The legal age of consent is 16 in the UK, but 18 for watching porn.

So sex with your eyes closed then? And then no prostitution/pseudo porno vids for you.

Yes, you can have sex but not watch it. British age limits are messed up.

At 16 you can leave home to live alone and get a full time job, meaning you'll be paying full taxes and can have kids. But you can't vote for a political party who will lower your taxes or treat your kids better.