Porn actors/actresses essentially get paid to have sex.  At first
glance, that seems like prostitution.  The difference is that the
payment is coming from a third party: someone producing the film,
photo shoot, etc.

Is there a law that separates the concepts of pornography and
prostitution?  I am interested in the wording of it. (I am primarily
concerned with US law, though if any information about laws of other
western countries is easy to come by, I would love to read it).

I presume both parties involved in the pornographic sex are receiving
payment.  If a male porn star works without payment, does it become
prostitution?

-------

If there is a legal way to exchange sex for money, it seems like there
could be loopholes to providing prostitution-like services legally. 
Here is an example of a scenario I have wondered about:

1.  If I were to pay $X to an agency that will "produce pornography",
could they legally hire my male friend to have sex with a female under
the guise of porn production?  The agency would pay both parties a
total less than $X, my original ?investment?.

Technically, both ?actors? will have been paid, the agency will make
whatever is left on top, and I appear as an investor in a photo shoot.

With a little brainstorming, there are many other scenarios that seem
to be grey area in my mind.

How intelligently were these laws written?

---

Clarification of Question by phil_rapoport-ga on 14 Dec 2003 23:14 PST

***If you are going to comment***

Please try to stay on topic with the question.  I am concerned only
with the legal difference between pornography and prostitution.  This
has nothing to do with which is more serious, more morally just, or
more dangerous.  I appreciate your insightful comments.  Thank you.

It could be argued that they are being paid to act, rather than being
paid to have sex.

Don't escorts use a similar argument, that the client has paid for
their company, and sex is not part of the deal. However if they end up
having sex, then that's just a consensual act between two adults.

Yes, they are being paid to act... but if the act involves sex, then
they are being paid to have sex as well.  If a porn actress chooses
not to have sex, she will not get paid.  (Whereas an escort, in
theory, can choose not to have sex and still get paid).

Hi phil_rapoport....

My thoughts on this....only...
I think the * actors and actresses * know what it is all
about...therefore there is no real seriosness with the
sex...............just another plateau to learn... who really knows
afterall?

Re Endo's comment:

These assumptions depend in part on who is making the pornography and
where the prostitution occurs.  An underground or illegal pornographic
film might carry a greater risk than legal prostitution such as in the
Netherlands.

That's puzzling: there was a comment by Endo several minutes ago.  The
comment suggested that pornography was generally a more controlled
environment, while prostitution was an environment more subject to
exploitation.

Dear Phil, 

It seems to me, that there is no such thing as a "legal definition of
pornography". For the sake of discussion, let's agree that media
material (newspapers, Internet sites, footage and so on), whose main
content is a sexual one, is "pornographic". However, the law refers to
"obscenity" (Miller v. California , 1973). This refers to the material
and its distribution - not to acts performed in it, or to the age of
the "actors", or to other elements that might be illegal.

The legal definition of prostitution, though it changes from place to
place - actually refers to the exchange of material goods for sexual
ones, not to other facets of the same phenomenon.

Therefore, in my opinion, some elements of both phenomena could overlap, legally.

The law has actually dealt with this issue quite specifically.  For
example, in the case of People v. Freeman (involving the production of
"caught from behind, part II") the California supreme court found that
pornography was not prostitution.  Basically, they said that
prostitution is defined as "any lewd act between persons for money or
consideration."  However, a lewd act "requires 'touching of the
genitals, buttocks, or female breast for the purpose of sexual
arousal, gratification, annoyance or offense . . . .'"   Thus, the
money or consideration must have been paid "for the purpose of sexual
arousal or gratification."  In the case of a pornographic film, the
acting fees are paid by the director (who recives no gratification),
and it is not prostitution.  Moreover, a finding of prostitution would
also impinge on first amendment rights.

See People v. Freeman 46 Cal. 3d 419.  Hope this was helpful.