digg

Join DiggAbout

Discover the best of the web!
Learn more about Digg by taking the tour.

See the original image at slate.com

Why is it legal to pay someone for sex on camera?

slate.com — Having sex on camera for an adult film generally won't get Jenna Jameson in trouble, but doing it with a john is illegal everywhere except in parts of Nevada. What's the difference between porn and prostitution?

Bury
show profanity settings
expand all
  • nahsrocketeer75, on 03/15/2008, -5/+484So, wouldn't the ultimate premium call-girl service include a videotape of the encounter so as to protect both parties against prosecution?
    • jstohler, on 03/15/2008, -2/+160That's genius. Time for you to go into business.
      • Alix7, on 03/15/2008, -8/+87I am SERIOUSLY considering starting this as a business. I have about $5k saved up in stocks which is not going to make me rich.

        Craigslist, here I cum.
        • Culex, on 03/15/2008, -73/+7I see what you did there! You spelled come as "cum", since you made a joke about something involving sex. That's a riot!
        • HenvY, on 03/15/2008, -9/+41I'd be willing to go into business with you. You could finance, organise and run the business, and i'd supervise the filming for a small fee. I warn you though, i've been known to turn up to work without any pants. Don't worry about it, it's just a quirk.
        • sapo916, on 03/15/2008, -2/+12I got a few mill in available funds, I can meet anywhere in the Silicon Valley.
        • Zephik, on 03/16/2008, -1/+2The only real difference between prostitution and pornography is a video camera and a company for the government to tax. If the govt could tax prostitution it would probably be legal. ...oh wait, they already do that, its just called porn instead of prostitution.
      • threemagic, on 03/15/2008, -1/+8It's not genius and has been thought of and even has been tried. You can't see sex as sex, period, otherwise prostitutes could say that people are just paying for "time" not the sex. Escort services are legal because it's just about "dating" and there is no guarantee of sex (a smarter business model).
        • EtherGnat, on 03/16/2008, -0/+1What about screen test try outs, though?
      • sanman, on 03/15/2008, -2/+5Spitzer should have claimed he was doing "research" for his next prosecution case
    • FriedTurkey, on 03/15/2008, -3/+103Only problem with that is some people really don't want evidence of them having sex with a prostitute.
      • loganarcher, on 03/15/2008, -4/+17yeah. that could be a little incriminating.
        • MadHarvey, on 03/15/2008, -0/+31Thats the beauty of it. Its a catch 22. The incriminating evidence itself makes the act legal.
          • CoolWind, on 03/15/2008, -2/+1in order to make it legal you have to be making a movie, not a memento
          • tyywebb, on 03/15/2008, -0/+4Define "movie."
          • GawtMilk, on 03/16/2008, -0/+4All that involves is slapping "BUTT SLUTTS GO NUTTS!" on a blue screen with white, bold font in Windows Movie Maker or iMovie.
        • crazykid596, on 03/15/2008, -0/+0would you rather have a videotape that you can keep private or go to jail
      • tehbishop, on 03/15/2008, -1/+43so offer to them to keep or destroy it. It's actually just using the loophole for full effect, as long as they know it all should be good. or have a blurred lens so the 'porno' isn't usable. :)
      • Zarokima, on 03/15/2008, -3/+33Just keep his face off camera. Also, at that point they're not "prostitutes" they're "actresses."
        • WNW3, on 03/15/2008, -4/+42Have the johns wear a Guy Fawkes mask
          • brutalentropy, on 03/15/2008, -1/+41Remember, remember the times you came in her! The rhythm, the reason, the *****. I know of no reason the times I came in her should ever be forgot!
        • KloroFormd, on 03/15/2008, -5/+3@WNW3:

          I just registered anonybone.com. Expect us.

          (I lied)
      • threemagic, on 03/15/2008, -0/+5You can have a shredder... there's no reason or charge.. it's just there.. what you use it for is your own business.
      • InsaneOni, on 03/15/2008, -0/+14Oops, I forgot to put a tape in it!
      • Elranzer, on 03/16/2008, -0/+9Want to see something really funny? Play the porno backwards. That way at the end, you see the hooker give back the money.

        - Rodney Dangerfield
      • raynar, on 03/16/2008, -4/+2its legal, for one, because the owners of those companies who distribute porn pay taxes. Ho'd dont.
      • brad3378, on 03/16/2008, -0/+4Wear a Burger King mask
        • LLLSecretChimp, on 03/17/2008, -0/+2You mean there are people who have sex without a Burger King mask? There are some real weirdos out there.
    • ricree, on 03/15/2008, -1/+9I've thought that too, and I'm sure that we're not the only ones. Since it doesn't seem to have emerged as a big business yet, I have to assume that there is some reason why it wouldn't work out.
    • bitterbug, on 03/15/2008, -2/+119They've been doing the on-camera prostitution in New York for years. There was a tv show on Showcase/Bravo about it a few years back. You pay the money and either operate the camera or have sex on camera, and as long as you "direct" the action, you're making a film, not engaging in prostitution.
      I certainly don't understand why prostitution is illegal anyway. It would be safer for women if it was legal and they were able to operate from businesses with doctors and security on staff. The trade isn't going to go away, so at least minimize the danger.
      • LordVance, on 03/15/2008, -1/+22It's the NAPLA keeping prostitution from being legal (North American Pimps Lobbyist Association)
      • reubencm, on 03/15/2008, -0/+27its legal here in New Zealand and there wasnt an increase at all, just an increase in safety for the working girls. and it has also made it easier to ensure that underage girls arnt working the streets.
    • MagnumVP, on 03/15/2008, -0/+12Then when the "Act" is over and you weren't raided then you can take the "Video" and destroy it as needed.
    • Saad85, on 03/15/2008, -4/+3see, you guys need to start thinking outside the box a bit. basically, make a company to offer the service you mentioned with cameras and such, and do it well, make sure the result is a good video. at the same time, offer optional "rehersal" sessions for a cheaper price, with the option to later have a movie created.
    • bonds, on 03/15/2008, -1/+11Who doesn't record all of their encounters already?
    • Altesse, on 03/15/2008, -0/+10Hmmmm...

      Something along these lines is being done : http://digg.com/world_news/Free_Sex_at_a_Brothel_W ...

      If there's sex involved, any and every possible idea or concept imaginable is already thought of and attempted.
    • 0Degrees, on 03/15/2008, -2/+10"Selling is legal, ***** is legal... why isn't selling ***** legal?" - George Carlin
    • xlar54, on 03/16/2008, -0/+2Hmm.. so if one were to wish to be avoiding arrest IF she is a COP, all you do is say "No ma'am, this isnt prostitution, Im making a movie, and Id like you to be the star. You will be paid of course for your acting abilities.". Keep a camera on a tripod. Arrest me now, bitch.
    • hmunkey, on 03/16/2008, -0/+3The problem is that it's the act that gets them into trouble. Most people don't worry about the fine/week in jail punishment, but about their lost job and crushed family.
      • shotgunefx, on 03/16/2008, -0/+2Well, that's true and not. If you're married, you shouldn't be sleeping with anyone else without there knowledge (hey, she could be into it).

        But there's no reason someone should lose their job for who they sleep with. An unattached guy really shouldn't face public disgrace for having sex. Maybe it's not becoming, but it's probably no worse than some random encounter in a bathroom at last call.

        I mean, there are certainly arguments to be made against prostitution.

        Personally, I don't get it. Why pay for something you can get for free and isn't as good?

        Only way it makes sense to me is if you can't get it (some people have various health, personality, or other issues that make coupling hard to come by I imagine), or to get something you can't have in real life, like 5 girls.
        • EtherGnat, on 03/16/2008, -0/+2You don't pay for the sex. You pay them to leave afterwards.
        • d3faultnet, on 03/18/2008, -0/+1EtherGnat ***** wins this entire thread.
    • shotgunefx, on 03/16/2008, -0/+1Don't you have to keep publicly available records of every performance available on request?
  • ReidFleming, on 03/15/2008, -2/+345Someone could conceivably say to a prostitute, "I don't want to have sex with you, I want to film a movie with me and you having sex. I will pay you $$$ for your acting services?" Then they just film it and nobody can get in trouble -- or am I reading that wrong?
    • Yez70, on 03/15/2008, -5/+74Yep, it's called the First Amendment. Once you film it, it becomes speech - protected by the constitution.
      • gthyb, on 03/15/2008, -0/+13This clearly points out a major flaw in our constitution. If only we could ban forms of speech the government didn't like... Blast our forefathers with no foresight.
        • Antwan718, on 03/15/2008, -13/+2Foresight or Foreskin?
        • tech42er, on 03/16/2008, -0/+1Oh, the government already does that. It's just unconstitutional.
      • reed311, on 03/15/2008, -0/+15I don't think it works that way. You can't get someone to consent to letting you murder them and then you get out of it because you filmed it and it's protected speech.
        • mistafreeze, on 03/16/2008, -0/+2Maybe, has anyone done this in the US? I know in germany a guy killed a man, and ate him, while video taping it. He went to jail, but again, this was in Germany.

    • lordmetroid, on 03/15/2008, -0/+10Maybe a third party needs to be present filming the act and paying both...
      • theotheragentm, on 03/15/2008, -1/+13Nope. There is plenty of point of view pornography on the web. Just two people.
        • osiris24x, on 03/15/2008, -1/+3Even has its own industry name, POV (point of view) porn. Just a girl and a guy holding a camera.
          • tech42er, on 03/16/2008, -0/+1Or a webcam on a nightstand sort of thing.
        • bosko1983, on 03/15/2008, -0/+2it's called gonzo
      • Squires, on 03/16/2008, -0/+2A third person, giggity.
    • dinostabOMG, on 03/15/2008, -4/+10Maybe that would work only if you sell the tape to the public. Which probably still wouldn't have worked out for Spitzer.
      • thrallie, on 03/15/2008, -0/+23Its protected under speech codes. Do I have to sell my school essays for them to be free speech?
    • loganarcher, on 03/15/2008, -2/+49I'm sure bringing up the first amendment up with the cops will go down real well.
      • MikeSD34, on 03/15/2008, -9/+3If by down well you mean down on the ground with a tazer probe in your ass. /captain obvious.
      • Ibox, on 03/15/2008, -0/+16not the cops... you'll have to deal with the judge... If you would tell the judge you were making a porn flick... and had a really good lawyer... you should be able to get off, or get a really reduced sentence not to push the issue, cause I'm sure the judge wouldn't touch that one with a 10 foot pole.
        • AROZ, on 03/16/2008, -0/+1After the trial is over, it's a different story though...
    • MoneyShot, on 03/15/2008, -7/+21I never understood why people see the legal system as some sort of intellectual Jenga. No, that wouldn't work. Judges and juries both look at the facts before them and consider the context. Neither are going to say "Ha! Good one! And we thought we were *this* close to nailing you for pandering."
      • Syphon8, on 03/15/2008, -5/+24Legally, they have to.
      • Kreigster, on 03/15/2008, -1/+8Judge is the trier of law, juries are the triers of fact.
        • ShadowMerchant, on 03/16/2008, -1/+4Ever heard of jury nullification? The judges and lawyers will tell the jury that they are allowed to try only the facts and not the law, but that is unpatriotic horse *****. As a juror, you can vote to acquit for any reason or no reason at all, and it's an excellent American tradition that ought to be cherished and cultivated. It has been a bulwark of our liberties since the Zenger trial of 1735. This is how we ought to be fighting the drug laws. (Just don't tell the judge that you know you have this right and power to set aside unjust laws, or they will remove you from the jury.)
          • tech42er, on 03/16/2008, -1/+2Well, TIME just ***** told everyone last week. This is why I now have respect for TIME. They ran an article by the creators of "The Wire", which advocated jury nullification to end the drug war. If I'm ever called for jury duty, I will admit to knowledge of jury nullification, my libertarian views, and my opposition to the drug war and statutory rape laws.
    • prophetpimp, on 03/15/2008, -0/+29For making the whole thing even more convenient you could just ***** her brains out as a practice session and decide the scene was no good so you don't shoot it.
    • monospaced, on 03/15/2008, -5/+1That sounds like the porn industry to me.
    • mille716, on 03/15/2008, -0/+51This is why I write a thirty page script and hire sound, lighting and camara men before I ***** each prostitute.
      • blackb0x, on 03/15/2008, -0/+12don't you mean 3 sentence script?

        If you cut out all of the "oooo"s and "Ahhh"s, you save lots of extra pages.
        • ebcreasoner, on 03/16/2008, -0/+1Hey, it's green too. Saves paper!
      • diggduggjoe, on 03/15/2008, -0/+3You only need one script. Just direct the actress that improvisation will be welcomed. Having a script is nice tough though.
        • coviecarbine, on 03/16/2008, -0/+1*Touch
          • diggduggjoe, on 03/16/2008, -0/+1Thank you grammar Nazi ;) !

            I caught it too late. Spell checking can only go so far. Unfortunately, tough is a real word.
    • chrisaug18, on 03/15/2008, -0/+3Just have a paid audition on the back seat of your car...
    • moush, on 03/15/2008, -1/+3You probably have to have a publisher, sell a certain amount of copies, and follow certain guidelines for it to be called a porno.
      • Antwan718, on 03/15/2008, -0/+2It could go to the sites like RedTube & YouPorn, say your trying to make a name for yourself and do it that way.
    • MaximusD, on 03/16/2008, -1/+4SWAT busted down my parents' neighbor's door and raided his home for making porn without a permit. So, no, you can't just randomly pay girls to be in your "movie." It will end just as badly.
      • CatsAreGods, on 03/16/2008, -0/+1So, the city didn't get their cut? Where was this, LA? I know the unions are bad there but that's pretty ridiculous...
    • mcsenget, on 03/16/2008, -0/+1Time for Caligula 2.. There's gonna be a lot of scenes.
  • hope4god, on 03/15/2008, -14/+119Its all about money, adult industry has to pay taxes on the movies they produce, and the actors have to pay taxes so its a money thing. Hookers and such dont pay any taxes and so thats not cool for the Govt. Its sad people have to do this if you are married or want to get married you would think you would want to invest your Love to someone as a person not an object.
    • dinostabOMG, on 03/15/2008, -1/+20He's getting dugg down, but there is some insight to this - taxation was one of the main issues in the rise and fall of prohibition, as well as the whiskey rebellion.
      • caketank, on 03/15/2008, -1/+2No, there isn't any insight to this. If government revenue were the only issue, prostitution would be legal and taxed.

        ... said mooseontheloose three hours ago. my bad.
        • dinostabOMG, on 03/15/2008, -0/+1Orly. Did you hear the story about a porn actor who contracted HIV from another actor maybe last year? Part of the fallout was that local government was put in the position where they had to weigh the tax revenue against their liability for not protecting the public by going after the producer. They didn't even hesitate to say so, to the press. But I guess you're an expert on spank material, so.
          • hope4god, on 03/16/2008, -0/+0Hey Dinostab, yes it was a guy who went to Brazil and contracted HIV and then came back to the US and had several adult movies he made and exposed like over a 100 Porno people and several came back postive HIV readings and it shut down the Porn industry for like a month or so, and cost them Milliions they said, and Porno actors were concerned they got HIV.
    • mooseontheloose, on 03/15/2008, -4/+31If that were the real issue, they would just legalize it and tax it
      • colto, on 03/15/2008, -7/+1Look at Las Vegas....
      • MavRevMatt, on 03/15/2008, -0/+4Then why don't they legalise weed?
        • nextyoyoma, on 03/16/2008, -0/+1because the tobacco, oil, clothing, paper, and food industries would lose money.
      • kodax, on 03/16/2008, -3/+1Like weed, its to hard to track properly. No one would pay taxes even if legalized.
    • elnerdo, on 03/15/2008, -2/+16The only reason they don't pay taxes is because it's illegal!
      • hansonc, on 03/15/2008, -0/+5According to the IRS you have to pay taxes on income whether or not it's from legal activities. See Al Capone for further reading.
        • Antwan718, on 03/15/2008, -4/+2And According to the supreme court a direct tax on your labor is a violation of the constitution but then again we still have Income Tax.....
        • caketank, on 03/15/2008, -0/+3@Antwan718

          The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration, you raving nutter.
    • mexicanman07, on 03/15/2008, -0/+11who said anything about love i just want to lose my vir... i mean get laid
      • hope4god, on 03/16/2008, -4/+0Mexicanman, Sex is not enjoyable unless 2 people truly love and care for each other, its an experience that when you have it you will never want anything else again as far as Love. Trust me it is very special and when you treat your wife like a queen and a woman, she will treat you right its about respect for other person sexual attitude if you will not freely given out or with a price tag, its a person bonding with their spouse and its awesome I hope this helps.
        • danjwray, on 03/16/2008, -0/+3you're doing it wrong
        • drmsux, on 03/16/2008, -0/+2That's a common misconception -)
          Plus, I wouldn't trust a guy who capitalizes the l-word.
          • hope4god, on 03/16/2008, -1/+0Drmsux, I dont get what you are saying?
        • agaudet, on 03/22/2008, -0/+1Thats *****, love is nice and all
          But ***** a hot ass bitch on a one night stand can be pretty gratifying too
          Put down the GOD pussy
          • hope4god, on 03/24/2008, -0/+0aqaudet, how about your HOT wife? and you can have Sex with a HOT Wife, like all the time rather then pay for it and get an STD from it, and not have a woman wanting you every chance because she loves you and you make her HOT, God knows Sex is ok with a Married Committed Man and Woman he created just a thought..........
    • MrPhelps, on 03/15/2008, -0/+16In European countries where they are legal, hookers pay taxes like any other worker ...
    • ozanweb, on 03/15/2008, -1/+6I don't think it is about the money, they could just as easily tax it when it's legalized. I think it's about religious (or moral) beliefs of the voters. How many evangelicals do you think will vote for a politician supporting prostitution? Just look at what just happened to the new york governor. Prostitution is seen as a bad thing in the public eye, therefore it's not beneficial for a politician to pursue legalizing it.
      • chicofaraby, on 03/15/2008, -1/+2" How many evangelicals do you think will vote for a politician supporting prostitution?"

        Bush's buddy Ted Haggard could "get behind" that. If the whore was male and had some meth....
    • iFrikkenR, on 03/15/2008, -0/+17Thats why they legalised it over here in NZ - it's a fully legal, TAXABLE profession. as is running a brothel. and with some hookers/brothels are making thousands per night so thats a good tax taking.

      The other thing about legalisation is that when it's illegal there are no rules at all. When you make it legal, you can then place restrictions on it. For example, no hookers nears schools, or on certain streets at certain times. No brothels within 100metres of a church or playground for example. Thats what they did here. It's perfectly logical and works for everyone.

      It's also safer for both the client and the worker. The worker can now go to the police about any abuse from clients and as it's legal, the police then have to act and can't give the hooker ***** because she's (or he's) a hooker. Certain rules must be followed to ensure a safe work environment for both the workers and the clients.

      It all makes so much sense. and the taxes, think about the taxes. a girl makes $1000 a night? less 19.5% PAYE... thats $975 tax per week! or $50,700 tax per year (assuming the work is constant) - however you look at it, even a hooker making a mere $200 a night is going to be an excellent source of tax revenue. bette rthan them being either a: unemployed and collecting the unemployment benefit at taxpayers expense, or b: being unemployed and receving the benefit AND selling sex illegally and make big dollars
      • dinostabOMG, on 03/15/2008, -0/+1What about liability? Are prostitutes or their establishments liable for damages if one of the clients contracts a disease, or something else "goes wrong?" That would seem to be the consumer protection aspect of legalization, no?
    • diggduggjoe, on 03/15/2008, -0/+6How does it make a woman an object. My barber is not a robot. I talk politics, weather or other stuff with him. In order for a prostitute to be exploited she would have to be forced and be ignored the whole time or put into some glory hole booth. I have never used a prostitute, but I am sure I would talk to her, if I did. She may be giving pleasure, but I am sure they are spoken to, especially a high priced one. You wouldn't want to waste an awesome accent now would you?
      • malchihi, on 03/15/2008, -9/+2I'm sure that ill get dugg down for this but w/e

        Any time you look at a female and just see something to have sex with you are objectifying women. The same goes if a woman looks at a man and sees something to have sex with.
        • diggduggjoe, on 03/16/2008, -0/+1Maybe, I do porn all wrong, but I fantasize that I interact with them. I imagine kissing, caressing, caring and I tend to look at the faces at climax. I even go as far as to imagine dating the girls I view.

          The number one thing I imagine with porn is that the girl enjoys sex. A pretty uptight bitch is far less of a turn on than a average looking babe who gets into it. Somehow, I do not envision myself with a cardboard cutout with a flesh light inside. I imagine the whole being.
        • EtherGnat, on 03/16/2008, -0/+1I'll agree that I'm objectifying a porn star when I watch--that's what she gets paid for, and it's her decision to make. I don't see how that translates to objectifying all women, though. I have no trouble telling the difference between fantasy and reality.
      • jdmzpf, on 03/15/2008, -1/+3And you think that maybe by saying "I might get dugg down for this" will help when you make a dumb ass statement, ha
    • HigherLogic, on 03/15/2008, -0/+1That applies to anything really, look at marijuana. Though, there is more to it than just "legalize and tax it".
      • jdmzpf, on 03/15/2008, -0/+2We could fund the war for like a week with the tax dollas from pot
        • dinostabOMG, on 03/15/2008, -0/+1Cut out the drug war and you could probably have enough left over to slaughter the people of another oil-producing country too!
    • diablo75, on 03/15/2008, -1/+2So prostitution is illegal for the same reason marijuana is illegal?
      • haterofps3, on 03/15/2008, -0/+3Yes

        Freedom is always something a government wants to outlaw!
    • Wolfcaster, on 03/15/2008, -1/+2Actually hookers do have to pay taxes, all income is subject to taxation, the IRS doesn't care if the money is obtained legally or not. If a hooker isn't paying taxes on earnings, then they are committing tax evasion, which is a more serious crime than prostitution.
      • solistus, on 03/16/2008, -4/+1Right.... Which is why all prostitutes and drug dealers get nailed with massive felony convictions for tax evasion. Oh, wait... No they don't.

        Such a standard would violate the Bill of Rights' protections against double jeopardy and, even more obviously, self-incrimination, would it not? The IRS can't require you to report illegal activities to them on pain of even more legal sanctions, just like you can't get charged with perjury for having claimed to be innocent after losing a criminal case.
        • EtherGnat, on 03/16/2008, -0/+1They don't get busted all the time because the cases are difficult to prove, and it's generally not worth the effort for petty criminals. They can't force you to report illegal activities, but if they can prove what you did (or even that you have unclaimed income from ANY source) they've got you dead to rights.
    • J3Holaday, on 03/16/2008, -0/+1How is the fact that it would raise tax money a good thing? That's just more money coming out of the economy and into the governments hands. The last thing I need is the government taxing sex. Let's keep the legal form of what is basically prostitution in some cases... dinner and a movie.
  • amanilaenvelope, on 03/15/2008, -15/+17why is someone complaining about sex being on camera?
    • TeacherOfHeroes, on 03/15/2008, -1/+15I think they're asking why it is legal to pay for sex ONLY when it is on camera, not complaining about it.
    • Tearlock, on 03/15/2008, -1/+8Lol, so the religious right can watch and make sure you're doing it right.
    • SLockhart, on 03/15/2008, -6/+1Because it shouldn't be.
      • dudeguy1234, on 03/16/2008, -1/+1Shouldn't be what? Make sense please
  • TomK88, on 03/15/2008, -14/+372Prostitution should be legal, period. It's not the government's place to dictate how you use sex.
    • dondara, on 03/15/2008, -60/+7Men controlling women. Not going to change that anytime soon. At least we don't burn them anymore ...well, not often.
      • Slick37c, on 03/15/2008, -2/+42They would have the option to be a prostitute you ***** dolt. Not to mention regulating it would be a lot safer than what goes on now.
        • parallax7d, on 03/15/2008, -3/+12men are prostitutes too, it's those darn women keeping us down!
        • schroeder, on 03/15/2008, -1/+3Watch out. Parallax will he-bitch man-slap you.
        • dondara, on 03/15/2008, -15/+6First off, ***** you, you're reading comprehension sucks. Men controlling women as in making laws to punish women for doing as they please. Of course they should be able to do as they wish. But it comes down to money as it always does. How can the gov get paid by people *****? Make it illegal for them to exchange money for it.

          Buried for using the word "safer". Pussy.
          • schroeder, on 03/15/2008, -1/+7"Safer" implied that these women wouldn't be forced to walk the streets late at night and get in cars with random dudes. They could have walk-ins where they would be safe or keep record of credit card transactions and ID to prevent abuse to the workers. They could also require blood tests and such. It's not about men controlling women at all. Men get in at least as much trouble for hiring a prostitute. And as far as money, the government could tax sex workers just like anyone else.
          • sampanc, on 03/16/2008, -2/+1Re dondora:
            Replace your Maxi-Pad and quit ur bitching!
      • desertDenizen, on 03/15/2008, -0/+5Dondara is saying that *outlawing* prostitution is men controlling women, not prostitution itself.
        • dondara, on 03/15/2008, -6/+3Dugg for having better than 3rd grade reading comprehension.
      • solistus, on 03/16/2008, -0/+2Neither supporting nor banning prostitution is an issue of one gender over the other in and of itself. That's hella heteronormative; there are forms of prostitution besides men hiring women.

        The _justifications_ for banning prostitution tend to be very much a case of men controlling women. Prostitution is publicly perceived as pretty much exclusively a female occupation, and banning prostitution is supposed to 'protect' them. Of course, there are women who justify the ban, too, but the dominant narrative is men telling us that prostitution is bad for those poor frail womanfolk who need someone else to protect them.

        Prostitution, like all consensual and victimless activities between adults, should be legal. You can say it inherently victimises the prostituted, but that's the result of _other_ conditions leaving someone with no other options, not something inherently evil to this option. If a person is desperate enough for money to become a prostitute against their wishes because they need the pay, I find it hard to swallow (no pun intended) that this person's life would be just peachy if, instead of being broke with only one ***** option left, they were broke with _no_ options.

        Of course, just as with the War on Drugs, the kicker is that the ban does _nothing_ to reduce the prevalence of prostitution. Spitzer is a great example; we have banned and demonised the activity as much as possible, and powerful politicians are still lured to it. We should stop ruining lives with devastating lawsuits and address the root causes of any problems rather than banning a symptom.
    • bagelmaster, on 03/15/2008, -46/+4It's because America was founded on Christian values. Last time I checked, Christians frown upon prostitutes. So this won't be changing anytime soon.
      • EXreaction, on 03/15/2008, -3/+45It wasn't founded on it, just taken over by them.
      • loganarcher, on 03/15/2008, -5/+1If I want to 'express' myself I will goddammit. Last time I checked it was still a free country.
        • dball48, on 03/15/2008, -0/+13check again
        • EXreaction, on 03/16/2008, -1/+1It's ok when people express their nudity in public then right?
          • MacEnvy, on 03/16/2008, -0/+1Yes. Forcing women to cover their breasts should be as reviled as forcing them to cover their face.

            More boobies in public is a GOOD thing.
      • thrallie, on 03/15/2008, -6/+201. Majority of our founding fathers were Deists. During their time Deism was growing in popularity.
        2. Catholic Church used to run brothels.
      • enclaved, on 03/15/2008, -2/+23What are you talking about, Jesus loved prostitutes. It's in the bible.
        • NSResponder, on 03/15/2008, -2/+3Jesus wasn't a christian.

          -jcr
          • enclaved, on 03/15/2008, -2/+3Yes, but guess where christian values come from! So suck it. Praise Jesus!

            -jhc
    • MoneyShot, on 03/15/2008, -6/+186"Selling is legal. ***** is legal. Why isn't selling ***** legal? Why is it illegal to sell something that is perfectly legal to give away for free?" - George Carlin
      • hammburglar, on 03/16/2008, -2/+2there always seems to be a george carlin quote that fits every debate perfectly
    • dball48, on 03/15/2008, -16/+7legalizing prostitution is too logical, only a "whack job" like Ron Paul would advocate something like that.
    • KingGorilla, on 03/15/2008, -0/+9It's my hot body I'll do what I want!
    • moush, on 03/15/2008, -1/+7Drugs also then. Victim less crimes are a tricky subject when making laws.
      • Mysrt, on 03/15/2008, -1/+2Going back to the george carlin quote, which makes sense to me. It is sort of different, because some drugs aren't legal. Now you may say but what dictates which drugs are legal and which aren't, for some drugs thats tricky as well, for others its pretty well accepted they are not good. Therefor most of the enforcement is directed toward those "bad" drugs. Remember selling some drugs is legal, (advil, sinus medicine, etc.), obviously selling others is not. Now gambling, on the other hand, is a victimless crime that makes no sense.
    • bovox, on 03/16/2008, -6/+4Society has to draw lines somewhere when it comes to acceptable behavior. Prostitution just happens to cross the line--just as incest, suicide, and selling yourself into slavery crosses the line. All of these things have been deemed unacceptable by society. Deal with it.
      • nikipedia, on 03/16/2008, -0/+1I think Governor Spitzer would have something to say about that....
    • Canuck, on 03/16/2008, -2/+3I agree that it should be legal. A guy can go to a night club and spend all kinds of $$ on drinks etc. hoping to have a one night stand and there is nothing illegal about it. But if the guy wants to spend his money on a "sure thing" it is illegal.

      Legalize it, put in rules so that everyone has to have medicals etc. then instead of the gov't spending all kinds of $$ trying to stop the impossible, they will be making a lot more through taxes.

      It should also help reduce or eliminate child prostitution as most people would go the safe and legal route. You don't hear about boot leg alcohol since prohibition was lifted as it just isn't worth the hassle anymore.
  • H0tKarl, on 03/15/2008, -15/+9Just be happy that it is.
  • smotpoker, on 03/15/2008, -12/+13I haven't read TFA yet, but I was under the impression (based on interviews I have seen) that Porn Industry is regulated to a degree, requiring regular STD tests and maintaining information on actor identities to protect the actors from health issues. Prostitution is supposedly illegal because maintaining such info is harder when you have a lot more participants who are harder to keep track of
    • codynyc74, on 03/15/2008, -1/+3LOL tell that to belladonna that rescently QUIT porn due to a herpes outbreak
    • magus424, on 03/16/2008, -0/+2Er, you haven't seen Nevada recently have you? :)

      Legal prostitution with required testing, required condoms, etc - it's far safer than leaving it outlawed where you get the illegal hookers with no tests, no required condom usage, and a much higher risk as such :)
  • Bggnz, on 03/15/2008, -1/+286"Officer this is not what it looks like, Im making a documentary"
  • ADVIZR, on 03/15/2008, -2/+62A better question: why are parts of Nevada enlightened in realizing that prostitution should be legal, licensed, and controlled -- while the rest of the USA is in the Dark Ages? Illegal prostitution, like the phony "drug war", creates an underground market = crime/violence, human trafficking, etc.
    • HonestAbe, on 03/15/2008, -0/+4Does it work, though?
    • Mysrt, on 03/15/2008, -5/+6in the dark ages prostitution was legal. One could make the arguement that nevada is in the dark ages, and the rest of the country is ahead of its time.
      • had3l, on 03/16/2008, -1/+5One would be an idiot.
      • Ravatar, on 03/16/2008, -0/+4Thats like saying alcohol was legal in the dark ages, then illegal for a period. Now that prohibition is over we're back to the dark ages?

        Get a grip.
    • brad3378, on 03/16/2008, -0/+3There's not much to do in Nevada unless you're near Las Vegas or have money for a prostitute.
    • bryceman111, on 03/16/2008, -1/+1Totally, like, get rid of laws = get rid of crime.

      /sarcasm
  • skinny01, on 03/15/2008, -1/+9Making adult videos is only legal in some states in the us though. Pretty much just california and maybe florida from what I remember. Watch the credits and you'll see most porn you watch is made in van nuys for example.
    • TheDarkstarter, on 03/15/2008, -3/+26Watch the credits of a porno...?!? Oh, uh yeah, errr emmm of course yeah I do that, I knew that!
    • TheDarkstarter, on 03/15/2008, -8/+16Watch the credits of a porno...?!? I never see the credits, 5 min after the opening sex scene I'm in the bathroom washing my hands.

      ok, I'll shut up now!
    • czeman, on 03/15/2008, -2/+2I take it you're a regular watcher of porn?
      • SpikeZ, on 03/15/2008, -0/+14We are on digg, I don't' think you really need to even ask that question.
    • regeya, on 03/15/2008, -0/+6It's true; every once in a while, in the college town I live near, someone gets busted for shooting porn. They usually get caught because it's Intarweb operations getting college girls on camera in a hotel/motel room, and naturally gets way too noisy or otherwise attracts too much attention.
      Porn is a legal grey area, and iirc is largely up to the local laws to govern, but precedent is that if all parties are getting paid for the "work" involved to make the porno, it's not prostitution.
    • Typhoon2009, on 03/15/2008, -0/+2I wonder where Clown Porn was filmed
    • MaximusD, on 03/16/2008, -1/+7True story: My parents live in a quiet LA suburb. I'm visiting them and in the driveway when 3 hot, but somewhat skanky, women get out of a car and start walking to my neighbor's house. One of them made a racy comment at me, but I'm way too much of a tool (and taken) to have pursued it. I definitely thought it was weird that I was hit on in my parents driveway. 3 months later the SWAT team busts down my neighbor's door in the middle of the night on a raid. He was making porn without a permit. Suddenly it all made sense.
  • aserer511, on 03/15/2008, -3/+21in light of recent physical changes, sex on camera should get Jenna Jameson shot
  • NelsonR, on 03/15/2008, -4/+5The government should be involved in legal sex through health, licensing and another source of tax revenue. It's such GD common sense yet the religious hypocrites who are a prostitutes best customer rail against it. Now myself, happily married, I would never use their services but I expect people to understand Sex will always be with us and prostitutes are a norm so why the hell hide and abase this fact. Street walkers pedaling sex without that government control should have harsh sentencing. Common sense but blowing in the wind with my comments since our elite get kick backs from organized crime to keep it illegal.
    • Tikisam, on 03/15/2008, -0/+3how on earth could a person believe that a role of government is regulation of prostitution? this is like state liquor stores, and the premise that the govt should provide drugs. either you're for liberty (legalization, and letting people reap the consequences of their actions and keeping govt involved in as few arenas as possible (national defense, enforcement of property protection laws, and a judicial system) or you're propogating more red tape from an organization that fails in damn near every endeavor it gets involved with.
      • NelsonR, on 03/15/2008, -1/+0The health issue is the most pragmatic with mandatory testing a must if the general public were ever to accept it. Now licensing and taxing would enable government to have another source for squandering. Remember we are at war with many more to come. We didn't learn from Vietnam so how is your grandchildren going to pay for Iraq? I say government control or else the private sector will make the change corrupt without being open. Simple pragmatic yet here we go again having to answer the obvious.
  • employeeno5, on 03/15/2008, -9/+7Slate consistently writes some of my favorite articles and editorials no matter what the subject. They're top quality journalism that strikes a fantastic and rare balance between serious, relevant, cite-able journalism and still having a good sense of playfulness and fun. Their pieces on the radio show "Day to Day" are great too.
  • smarty927, on 03/15/2008, -0/+28I've been saying this for ages, and I think it goes further than just the tax issue mentioned above. I think it's a shame for this girl too. Sure, she did something terrible in the eyes of society, but what about a sorority girl who screws once a week with different men? The sorority girl gets labeled as someone enjoying her twenties while the girl in this story gets labeled as one of the worst people on Earth. ::shugs shoulders::
    • Professr, on 03/15/2008, -8/+5The sorority girl gets labeled as a slut, and no respectable guy would consider her marriage material, IMHO.
    • KireGoTI, on 03/15/2008, -2/+3I don't see somebody who has sex with a different person every week as "enjoying [his/her] twenties." I knew some people like that in college, and they were basically just unable to form stable relationships and immature about sex. Generally, I like to think that such a high level of promiscuity, which is probably unsafe for all parties involved, is frowned upon.
  • WraTH017, on 03/15/2008, -31/+78George Carlin: ***** is legal. Selling is legal. Why is selling ***** not legal?

    Same reason pot is illegal. Because it might make people more free and happier, and the government can't have that.
    • WraTH017, on 03/15/2008, -4/+18First line is a quote from Carlin, the rest is personal opinion. Couldn't edit in time.
    • SLockhart, on 03/15/2008, -6/+23You really believe the government is out to get you?
      • stormgren, on 03/15/2008, -3/+4It's all the weed making him paranoid.
      • muchachoburacho, on 03/16/2008, -1/+3He makes an interesting point. Everything suggests that for weed and prostitution, the social costs of prohibition are much worse than the social costs that would be incurred if they were legal and regulated. That being said, how come the government can't either legalize both, or at least provide legitimate reasons why they are prohibited activities.
      • dudeguy1234, on 03/16/2008, -1/+2yes
    • dannyboy3020, on 03/15/2008, -2/+17I don't think the government is on some sinister mission to keep us unhappy.
      • NelsonR, on 03/15/2008, -4/+1Yes the government wants to make you unhappy, why Bush then. For his rhetoric?????
      • JohnboiWaltune, on 03/15/2008, -2/+8No, but it is about control. Get married, squeeze out the next generation of workers, keep yourself stupefied with alcohol and TV with the 'free' time that you're 'allowed' from your menial job, borrow money and consume products, pay your bills, don't step out of line or you'll be punished.
        • octophobic, on 03/16/2008, -0/+3By your logic the government would also want to keep you distracted with prostitutes and weed.
        • muchachoburacho, on 03/16/2008, -1/+2Weed and prostitution would cut into alcohol's profits, would they not? If you were a beer company that hired lobbyists to go to washington, wouldn't you want weed and prostitution outlawed.
    • inv1ctus, on 03/15/2008, -3/+2We live in a society where we as a whole determine what is legal or not. No we do not directly make the laws but vicariously so through the persons we elect to represent us. If you don't like a law then you have the power to use the system. Prostitution is illegal because it's deemed a "crime against society". I'm with you with the Carlin quote though - what I do on my Wednesday afternoon behind closed doors is my own damn business. The government can't keep everyone happy but it is their job to try and dictate an appropriate balance. Majority rules.
      • senatorpjt, on 03/15/2008, -1/+3So was it Obama, Clinton or McCain that wants to legalize pot and hookers?
        • inv1ctus, on 03/15/2008, -0/+2Your sarcasm is flawed and proves my point exactly. Obama, Clinton and McCain all have supporters - aka American Citizens. They're in a position to be president because we put them there. If legalizing pot and hookers was an important issue with Americans outside of digg.com you would see Obama and Clinton screaming from the rooftops, "NHS for everyone! National Hooker Services can no longer be lived without, in 2008 if you elect me....etc etc".
    • FeargusMcDuff, on 03/15/2008, -5/+6Take off your tin foil hat and take and open your eyes.
    • HonestAbe, on 03/15/2008, -1/+10Or it's just because a lot of people in our society think it's wrong.

      Nah, must be a government conspiracy.
  • insanebrain, on 03/15/2008, -8/+3Politicians can watch porn privacy, but must attack in publicly . .. it's called hypocrisy.
  • Refaeli, on 03/15/2008, -6/+1Why isn't it legal to pay someone for sex off camera?
    • czeman, on 03/15/2008, -0/+2The article answers that question. You didn't read it, did you?
  • xiphy, on 03/15/2008, -43/+1Oooh Diggers, so very liberal. Please, if prostitution and drugs were legal, the whole country would be as seedy as Amsterdam. Save your "progressive" arguments - something things SHOULD be taboo.
    • SpeshulEd, on 03/15/2008, -2/+4Your mom is still taboo
    • TomK88, on 03/15/2008, -0/+7I'm so happy to live in a "liberal" country like Canada. I bet most of the developed world is as well.
    • Syphon8, on 03/15/2008, -0/+1Amsterdamist.
    • Herostratos, on 03/15/2008, -0/+17What's wrong with Amsterdam?
    • Xondar, on 03/15/2008, -0/+6Things can be taboo, but why do they have to be illegal?
    • starkruzr, on 03/15/2008, -1/+2Authoritarian prick. Keep your laws off my (and everyone else's) body.
  • Almadiel, on 03/15/2008, -14/+2Porn is only pretending to have sex, just like people in an action movie only pretend to shoot each other. They aim the gun and pull the trigger, but the rest is camera tricks and editing. Likewise, pornstars just go through the motions as a performance. There is also the matter of who is paying who. I'm pretty sure there is no law against paying two people to have sex with each other.
    • TheDarkstarter, on 03/15/2008, -1/+20Pretending? If there is really a penis going in a vagina (or other orifice) that's not pretending, that's sex.
      • czeman, on 03/15/2008, -0/+3Yep. They aren't exactly animating cumshots. Those dudes are really shooting.
    • FriedTurkey, on 03/15/2008, -0/+6I agree. That's why I can't stand looking at professional porn. Anybody who has real sex would know women don't get excited when they do things like they do in porn.
      • ralphthemagi, on 03/15/2008, -1/+1Some do.
      • Xondar, on 03/15/2008, -0/+2That's different. They're pretending to enjoy real, yet awkward and unsatisfying filmed sex.
    • Aertyr, on 03/15/2008, -1/+4If you think porn is people "pretending" then I question what your idea of sex really is. In a physical sense it is in every way real. The only way I could see it being "fake" is the emotional aspect. The acting may be fake or over-done but the act is real.
    • czeman, on 03/15/2008, -0/+1I'm pretty sure most of the guys aren't PRETENDING to enjoy pounding those chicks. I know I wouldn't be. lol
    • Almadiel, on 03/15/2008, -0/+2Have you ever seen a porn production? Its almost never one take. Usually the men get themselves erect by masturbating between takes, and the women apply lots of lube, then they gyrate for a few minutes until the director calls for another angle and they stop to move the camera equipment around and change position for maximum visibility. If that is your idea of sex, then you are insane. Its a simulation of sex, and a poor one. It takes more than penetration to be sex.

      And as for the enjoyment, I'm sure it wears off over time. Random strangers picked by the director are not necessarily going to be attractive to you.
  • FeargusMcDuff, on 03/15/2008, -3/+18Its different because both parties get paid (or at least don't have to pay) for the sex, so neither is hiring the other for sex; its not prostitution.
    • Sagara, on 03/15/2008, -1/+5I see someone actually read the article....
  • alex199, on 03/15/2008, -1/+9Freedom of expression!
  • AlphaToker, on 03/15/2008, -0/+48I lived for a few years in Germany and prostitution is legal there. Lot less trouble and people are not so stuck on the whole thing. Now I myself don't like the idea of having sex with someone who just had sex a dozen times, but many out there do and they should not be punished for it. Never the less people should have the right to sell their body if they wish to do so and be protected against abuse the legitimate way. This addresses a lot of issues like prostitution and crime and also the rape argument.
  • elguando, on 03/15/2008, -10/+1The system seems fine now. Just like with marijuana, people who want it can get it as long as they're smart enough not to get caught. If prostitution were legalized, it would be much more expensive than it is now because of the taxes and mandatory medical exams.
    • PeterODactyl, on 03/15/2008, -0/+2On one hand you're paying for taxes and medical exams, on the other you're paying for bail, fines, lawyers and penicillin.
  • JK1150, on 03/15/2008, -7/+1what a stupid argument...
  • daxsymbiont, on 03/15/2008, -10/+28Only the puritan U.S, remains with such puritan ideas. Them and the Iranians.

    No wonder they fight for who is the most puritan.
    • Player1, on 03/15/2008, -0/+31Looks like somebody learned a new word today.
    • kwulf, on 03/15/2008, -4/+1"No wonder they fight for who is the most puritan." lol, good point
    • makkaveli19, on 03/15/2008, -3/+1haha brothels are legal in iran under the supervision of the gov :) sorry bud
  • kirakun, on 03/15/2008, -8/+1It's very simple: The US government can tax porn video but they haven't figured out how to tax prostitution yet.
  • GANGSTAGEEK, on 03/15/2008, -5/+0The hours.
  • rswelling, on 03/15/2008, -7/+2Aside from the taxes...the difference is publicly you become a pornographer, which unfortunately in our society carries a stigma.
  • zangis, on 03/15/2008, -4/+4If you read this you will notice it talks about why POLITICIANS are always getting in trouble, and plastered on the news. Think about how our government works. Someone doesn't do what you want, you get them out of office and put in a puppet. In this case, he was plastered, resigned, whatever, and now a puppet will go in.
  • Tikisam, on 03/15/2008, -1/+9I could be totally wrong, but it seems like i've heard that pornography production is legal in certain places and illegal in others.
  • dselliott, on 03/15/2008, -4/+39Sexually, the US is among the most backwards nations on earth... and leadership obviously feels no compunctions about exporting ignorance and religious zealotry. Sad.
    • starkruzr, on 03/15/2008, -0/+3Uh. No.

      Pick just about any country whose national religion is Islam and you're doing much, much worse than we are. We're a bunch of prudes, but we're not THAT bad.
  • Xondar, on 03/15/2008, -0/+9So, what one does, up to and including sex, on camera is freedom of speech; but what one does with their own body when hiring a prostitute is illegal? Am I the only one seeing the hypocrisy here?
    • octophobic, on 03/16/2008, -1/+1With two people it's a conversation but with 3 or more it's a speech. On a film set I imagine you'd need a camera man, a guy to hold up cue cards, grip boys, fluffers, a producer, etc..
  • mojojojo, on 03/15/2008, -7/+2It was always a dirty drunk concept of me and my old fraternity brothers that what if some big producer just opened up studios all over the country.... Kinda like a porn version of Glamour Shots.

    I mean, you are making a 'movie' and are a 'guest star'. Idonno... it might also lead to the downfall of society so we figured that one might be best left alone.

    WHO VOTES FOR IT? (thats what diggneeds.com) a way to have voting in the forums that shares and publishes results and analytics via embedded widgets aggregated in your facebook or digg profile... like 'current polls' and a way to directly participate .... Hint Hint.

    coming soon
  • unfilterthought, on 03/15/2008, -0/+3If we really wanna compare Prostitution to another profession, it should be any profession where they can lay their hands on you for your own personal gratification.
    • KingGorilla, on 03/15/2008, -0/+6massage therapy?
    • Sagara, on 03/15/2008, -0/+5The Medical Profession? You realize that doctors used to "gratify" women in order to alleviate their stresses.....
    • Ellipsys, on 03/15/2008, -1/+2How about Evangelical Christian Minister? They shout encouragement, "lay on hands" and the person goes into convulsions of joy, supposedly. Doesn't sound much different.
  • webefools, on 03/15/2008, -2/+18need to protect the pron... if it wasnt for pron, we's would not have interwebs and internets today... no pron, no internets, no digg... need to protect pron.
  • stanti, on 03/15/2008, -0/+20You don't pay a hooker for sex, you pay her to leave.
    • LomasLou, on 03/15/2008, -3/+1So if you're at her place she should pay you?
  • rflood, on 03/15/2008, -11/+6didn't jesus sleep with a hooker?
    • fibromyangel, on 03/15/2008, -3/+2Pope Gregory identified Mary Magdalene as a "Peccattix" but did not call her a "Merretrix" which meant she was a "sinful woman" but not a "prostitute'... There is a feast/festival for her every 22nd of July as she is now considered a Saint to many Catholics. She is also commemorated on the second Sunday after Easter by the Orthodox Church... High regard coming from the Catholics for being no more than a "Sinful Woman". She is considered an Equal to the Apostles, some have said she was an Apostle. There are those who also believe that she was the wife of Jesus and the Mother to Jesus' Son Judah, who was speculated to be sleeping in Jesus' lap at the last supper. There are many interesting theories regarding this "Sinful Woman"/"Saint", It all depends on who is telling the story. Regardless, she made quite the impression on Jesus, as well as the Church, and managed to gain sainthood ,even with her "not so pure" background.
      Researching this subject will run you in circles and run you into myths and opinions... so, it is all in what you choose to believe. I am not Catholic... but have always found this story of interest. I Digg It!
      • dawnraid101, on 03/15/2008, -1/+1um wtf the catholic church has never said jesus had a son, nowhere in the bible is it alluded to that jesus was married to mary. ***** off you troll. seeing as you arent catholic you dont know ***** about this, all youve done is read some conspiricy websites.
        • fibromyangel, on 03/16/2008, -1/+0wow... with your language you really sound catholic...hahahaha
        • fibromyangel, on 03/16/2008, -1/+1Furthermore... I have studied many "belief systems" over the last 20+ years, and as much as you would like to believe that your bible contains all of your instuctions and truths, you are sadly mistaken. Please consult your local Parish for more details concerning the statements I have made above. You will find that the dates of interest are correct and that Pope Gregory did in fact identify Mary in this regard. Although you may not find many on this board that may agree with the belief that Jesus married Mary and produced a Son named Judah, these are viable beliefs to others. Your foul nature and language only show us that you have little to no control over your emotions or understanding of anything outside of the bible. Come outside the Box!!!
        • pissinuoff, on 03/16/2008, -1/+1Hmmm dawnraid, you must have voted for GWB in the last 2 elections. Are you so far stuck up the GOP's ass that you can't smel the truth from the ***** slinging against the walls of Jericho. There is no conspiracy theory about Jesus being married. It is the truth. Besides what your chosen Bible says/dictates to your feeble pea brain. The Bible was rewritten by several "men", in vary many different ways to their liking. The word of truth has been so distorted and changed throught time that the Bible, like any other book is up to the reader of such material to take their own thoughts and adjust them to their liking. Yes, some people call the Bible the "Good Book". Well, that is true. It is a well written and good story. Many years of effort were taken in making it a interesting and thought provoking read. Hell, Titanic was a good book, as was any writing of Homer, Plato, Einstein, Darwin. You choose to label someone as a troll. You and your vulgar "Christian" words. Well, I suppose this makes you a phistian. Phistian: noun, a person who claims to be a Christian, yet teaches hate. Adjective: of relating to or, professing Phistianty or it's teachings. Informal: having or showing qualities associated with Phistians, esp. those of hatred, including mockery and ridicule.... Or another example...I am a Christian, I try and follow Jesus' example. The word Christian has been hijacked by people who like to hate. I can change my label or change theirs. I will cal them Phistians. I am not a Phistian!... I don't claim any religion. I choose to let common sense and my moral ethics lead my way and help dictate my lifestyle. You certainly need to read more than just the Bible my friend and wake up. Phistian...
          • dawnraid101, on 03/16/2008, -1/+1***** you. im not from the US so wtf is GOP. phistian , go suck a *****. cant be botherd getting into a religous flame battle. i am awake, get a life dont type ***** huge messages in digg cuz i cant be bothered reading them. Btw i am well aware the bible has been translated from greek and hebrew.
    • thallium205, on 03/15/2008, -1/+6No??
    • hope4god, on 03/16/2008, -2/+0What a stupid thing to say..........
    • octophobic, on 03/16/2008, -1/+1..
  • waluum, on 03/15/2008, -1/+8This raises a good point. I propose we make pornography illegal then.
    • Zephik, on 03/16/2008, -0/+2Yea right, the govt would have a huge epidemic of suicide cases if they did that. Porn is the only reason I have to live!

      ...not really. But seriously, they should make prostitution legal. The only REAL reason why its not is because we have an "image" to withhold. Hopefully those ways of thinking die with the baby boomers. I'm really tired of all this censorship and "you can't do this" or "you cant do that", just because some old fart thinks so.

      Also, about the arguement that they don't make it legal because they can't tax it, they could if they wanted to. Make brothels a legit company, now thats its a company, the govt can tax them. They could make huge profits if they did that, so why don't they? Because old farts think its wrong and they don't want our country to be portrayed as such a place.

      They would probably argue about something like disease or something. They could make it a safe and clean enviroment by law, couldn't they? See, its all about image. At least I think so.
  • fEaRlEsSmOrOn, on 03/15/2008, -0/+3It's incredible to see how much farther the underlying meaning of the First Amendment is interpreted in this article. On one hand, it is legal to do so if you are hired to have sex in an act (film). On the other hand, it is illegal to do so if you are hired to have sex without being in an act (film). This doesn't make anysense.
  • czeman, on 03/15/2008, -0/+4The government says that laws banning prostitution are there to prevent the spread of STDs and what-not. How about this? Legalize prostitution and regulate it much in the same way porn stars are. Require the prostitutes operate out of "whore houses" or what have you, and require regular testing for diseases. The government wins with tax dollars, and those who really want to pay for sex win (I guess). Just throwing and idea out there.
  • secion8, on 03/15/2008, -7/+41 word for ya "TAXATION"

    Prostitution is not taxable so there for is illegal. Same with marijuana, There is no way to tax the stuff so it is illegal, Even though it is safer than alcohol.
    • stormgren, on 03/15/2008, -0/+3Sure you can tax marijuana. Treat it like alcohol or cigarettes. I know you'll argue you can grow your own, but you can grow your own tobacco and brew your own beer too. The vast majority won't do it, so marijuana is viably taxable.
      Edit: Also, tax the seeds.
    • 0Degrees, on 03/15/2008, -0/+2Cannabis is produce and shouldn't be taxed anyway.
    • pedepy, on 03/16/2008, -0/+1eh i think you have this backwards buddy ....... its not taxed because its illegal, not illegal because it's somehow untaxable ?! ...

      believe me, 'untaxable'.. aint part of no goverment dictionary
  • kinetix06, on 03/15/2008, -1/+7Porn is taxable, prostitution isn't?
  • feeboo, on 03/15/2008, -0/+2i don't know if this has been said but porn is considered art by some and it is protected by the first amendment. you can comment on taxing, health concerns or whatever but as far as legally, that is the major reason. porn is protected by the first amendment, prostitution isn't.
  • vichussmith, on 03/15/2008, -0/+3To answer the article, porn's legal because eventually the government eventually gets a cut of that porn money. It is stupid that pimps n' hoes prostitution is illegal. The government could get so much cash off all that sex. It is silly that some prostitution is illegal.
  • bradbaxter, on 03/15/2008, -0/+6There are only 2 options:

    1) Make it illegal to exchange money for sex (including the hiring of people to have sex for your production).

    -or-

    2) Make prostitution legal.

    Just about anything that contains so many loopholes is bad law, to begin with.
    • b3owulf, on 03/16/2008, -1/+1Obviously those are not the only two options...
  • ElBoss, on 03/15/2008, -1/+3If you want to compare prostitution to another profession, you really should compare it to politics, not porn.
    • userperson, on 03/16/2008, -0/+1That's insulting to prostitutes.
      (though somewhat apt).
  • dizturbd2, on 03/15/2008, -7/+5If you don't know the difference between a Hooker, and an Adult Film, then you are beyond my help, and hopelessly retarded. Go find Jenna Jameson down by the corner and give her $20 for some head. Oh, she's on the Video, not at the corner Roach Motel like the Hookers servicing sleazeballs who are too afraid to tell their wives that they are not longer sexually attracted to them and give them the divorce they deserve. Either way you look at it, you're cash is spent. My wife will watch porn, but I don't think she'd buy in to a Hooker in the mix...
  • ExileMen, on 03/15/2008, -1/+3Because sex on camera pay taxes whereas sex on street are personal reason and doesn't pay taxes.
  • NealJ2K, on 03/15/2008, -0/+5Better Question:
    Why is it illegal to pay someone for sex off camera?
  • bingobongony, on 03/15/2008, -2/+15It IS illegal to pay someone to have sex with YOU on camera. The money man in a porn operation cannot be an actor in the sex scenes.
    • kwulf, on 03/15/2008, -1/+7interesting
      • brad3378, on 03/16/2008, -0/+1You just need a friend to pay for this time with the promise of paying him for the next time.
    • magixx2, on 03/15/2008, -0/+3What about POV?
      • b3owulf, on 03/16/2008, -0/+1That guy is getting paid as well...
    • pudly, on 03/15/2008, -2/+1incorrect - have you not heard of GONZO video ?

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gonzo_pornography
      • bingobongony, on 03/15/2008, -3/+7Gonzo has absolutely NOTHING to do with who is paying the bills. What I said is 100% true. The money man CANNOT act in a sex scene.

        And just a tip...the things you see on sites like Mike's Apartment, Cumfiesta, Bang Bros.etc...those guys are NOT really thorwing $200 at a girl for the sex. It is an act. The people in the scenes are NOT the guys paying the girls. And they are getting paid too.

        The funny thing is..you linked to a Wikipedia article that in no way, shape or form backs up your statement.
      • mcsenget, on 03/16/2008, -0/+1so we make a deal. i pay for you and you pay for me.
    • lvflashguru, on 03/16/2008, -0/+0I don't think that is quite true. As the filmmaker, you could pay someone to have sex with you, but you would also have to pay yourself as an actor and complete the same requirements as any other actor which includes the testing and you would have to pay taxes on that income. You would do that as an individual while your film company would have to maintain it's own records as a business. This article spells out in detail the distinction between prostitution and pornography:

      http://edition.cnn.com/2005/LAW/08/12/colb.pornogr ...
      • bingobongony, on 03/16/2008, -0/+1Nowhere in that article does it mention paying yourself as an actor to get by the prostitution laws. In fact, the "Who is Paying Whom" section suggests exactly what I said.
  • Fetching more discussions...
    Show 51 - 100 of 105 discussions
  •  

    Login or register to add a comment

    Create a new account or login to join in the conversation on Digg. You'll also be able to Digg stories to help promote things you like.


© Digg Inc. 2008 — Content posted by Digg users is dedicated to the public domain.
DIGG, DIGG IT, DUGG, DIGG THIS, Digg graphics, logos, designs, page headers, button icons, scripts, and other service names are the trademarks of Digg Inc.