The women in porn get paid so its the same thing. Doesn't make any sense.
The women in porn get paid so its the same thing. Doesn't make any sense.
A lot of reasons. Originally it was to promote public health i.e. curb the spread of STD's. That is no longer valid and in fact professional providers tend to be much "safer" than non-professionals.
Now it is supposed to prevent "exploitation " of women. Yes, there are women who are victimized and exploited. A lot of them work in fast food and retail lol. But seriously, it's like trying to cure dandruff by scalping. For every woman who is exploited there is another one who is living large and loving life by escorting. Plus there are politicians who can't resist involving themselves in the personal lives of other people. In my lifetime , birth control and abortion were illegal in most states. So was homosexual activity.
And assisted suicide. And all drug use. etc.etc. Sensible , off the street ,consensual prostitution is one of the remaining dominoes that has yet to fall. In some places like Miami , New Orleans , San Fran and Vegas the average escort will be left alone by LE so long as there are no drugs , no minors , no rip-offs and things are kept quiet and discreet.
Last edited by Eric Stoner; 01-26-2015 at 10:45 AM.


For a long time most porn was shot in places where prostitution was legal. That's how they got around it. I do know of at least 1 amateur "porn star" who was prosecuted for filming porn in her community. It was all just friends, no one got paid...but she had to go to court over it. She violated an obscenity law I think. It was about 5 years ago. Not sure if anything has changed since.
It seems like professional porn is more of a controlled and regulated environment. The actors have mandatory testing and movies can only be produced in certain areas.
Maybe if prostitution was regulated like in Nevada it would be legal more places.
Plus I think it wouldn't be as easy to f*ck a porn star as it would be to f*ck a prostitute. Maybe they're trying to curb instant gratification sex / potential stds by making easy access hired p*ssy hard to get. Cause when you think about it prostitues seem quite self regulated and this could be dangerous especially the low-level ones that are drug abusers or don't take their health seriously.
“Cook for him like a housewife, fuck him good like a nympho….pay the rent and the car note, he invests in me like crypto”
use to be because of massive massive outbreaks of things like syphilis. really any knowledge of history more so late victorian early industrial age you had millions dying a year as a result of third stage complications. another major facet came because alot of it was " and a way still is" has a nasty habit of feeding or being fed by the sex trade ie, abducted women, children , and so on. Its not nearly as bad as it use to be.... but there is still a dark underbelly...its a reason then too that back then things like brothels were generally " okay" because there was an oversight of some nature. So really its one of these situations when you want to know why something is the way it is, you need to look back in history of and do your homework. often times " blanket bans" are a quick fix that rarely get updated or revisions very often. Prohibition for example really sorta started as a measurable way to cut down on the rampant spike in domestic violence and literally millions of people passed out in the gutters since we had no understanding of ptsd and such, and post civil war really had major emotional scarring people drank away and took out on their wives.....thats how it started, but like all things sociopolitical it warps and shifts as it goes through into becoming some form of enforceable law and things get skewed alot. and that can also differ place to place nation to nation
*edit* to add thats not the only reasons, but some of the major ones that went into alot of the initial reasoning
Hatred does not cease by hatred but only by love; this is the eternal rule.
" What is Reality? An icicle forming in fire."
-Dogen Zenji


In the United States, because of the 1st Amendment for some material that might be considered "pornography"
"I shall not today attempt further to define the kinds of material I understand to be embraced within that shorthand description ["hard-core pornography"], and perhaps I could never succeed in intelligibly doing so. But I know it when I see it, and the motion picture involved in this case is not that." United States Supreme Court Justice Potter Stewart in his concurrence to the majority opinion concerning Jacobellis v. Ohio in 1964.
In 1966 the Miller test came about. This involves three criteria when attempting to legislate obscenity.
The average person, applying local community standards, looking at the work in its entirety, must find that it appeals to the prurient interest.
The work must describe or depict, in an obviously offensive way, sexual conduct, or excretory functions.
The work as a whole must lack "serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific values".
This was also the result of a US Supreme Court case, Memoirs v. Massachusetts. This case concerned a book written in 1749 called "Memoirs of a Woman of Pleasure", the book is also known as "Fanny Hall" the main character.
In most places the stuff you find on the web or in stores would actually be illegal under obscenity laws, they just aren't enforced. Many States and Municipalities have laws against producing, selling or even owning pornography and/or obscene material. I would be willing to bet if you looked into the statutes of where you lived you will find laws regarding pornography/obscene material backed up with the some reasoning used to pass laws against prostitution.





Here's an actual story I know that blurs the line. Years ago I knew this dancer who decided to go into amateur porn. At the time there was a lot of work in that industry around Chicago and these were legit companies. Anyway her niche was interesting because she would make porn videos with men that her husband shot and then sell them (I don't remember if she sold to the guys or to anyone). I want to say she charged these guys but can't remember. If she was charging them for the movies then she would likely be considered a prostitute but if she was paying these guys and then selling the videos she probably wouldn't be.
I agree with breedancer in that the law seems to not make much sense because porn stars and prostitues are both getting paid to f*ck.
Hell I'm guessing in theory prostitues could probably skirt the law by moving somewhere like California, hiring a producer, setting up cameras, and hiring a marketing/sales team to distribute their f*ck sessions via dvd/Internet then they're no longer illegal prostitutes but legal porn stars.
But I guess prostitues outside Nevada like their anonymity and independence even if it means working illegally
“Cook for him like a housewife, fuck him good like a nympho….pay the rent and the car note, he invests in me like crypto”





The adult biz puts a lot of tax money into the CA state budget & the state would be smart to keep that going on.
BTW one of my room mates grew up in the San Fernando Valley in the mid-1980s and he told me he used to watch porn movies being filmed (his neighbors were gay guys who worked in the biz and would bring him & his brother along to work as "go-fors" or just basically allow them to gawk.)
Most people who DIDN'T grow up in metropolitan areas don't realize that if something produces desperately needed revenue....people are gonna tolerate it. In the city you hustle or you die.
Bookmarks