# Let me see if I understand this...(sorta adult) **URL:** \ **Category:** Miscellaneous and Personal Stuff I Must Share\ **Created:** [May 14, 2003, 12:49am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/let-me-see-if-i-understand-this-sorta-adult/175095 "2003-05-14T00:49:45Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 8\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![cmosdes](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/a587f6/32.png) [@cmosdes](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/cmosdes)\ **Post date:** [May 14, 2003, 12:49am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/let-me-see-if-i-understand-this-sorta-adult/175095/1 "2003-05-14T00:49:45Z")
If I offer to pay a woman to have sex with me, both of us can go to jail. But if I offer to pay her and film it and sell the film, I’m okay. If a woman offers me money to have sex with her for the express purpose of getting pregnant, she (and I) can go to jail. But if she pays a doctor to pay me to get the sperm and inject it inside her, that is okay. Not that I’m trying to start any debates, nor am I ranting. Just observations. Anyone have any other silly inconsistencies they’ve noticed in various laws? ---
**Author:** ![norinew](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/eb9ed0/32.png) [@norinew](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/norinew)\ **Post date:** [May 14, 2003, 1:17am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/let-me-see-if-i-understand-this-sorta-adult/175095/2 "2003-05-14T01:17:33Z")
I have often wondered about the porn film/prostitution inconsistency. ---
**Author:** ![Marley23](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@Marley23](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Marley23)\ **Post date:** [May 14, 2003, 1:40am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/let-me-see-if-i-understand-this-sorta-adult/175095/3 "2003-05-14T01:40:29Z")
> [@](#): > > If I offer to pay a woman to have sex with me, both of us can go to jail. But if I offer to pay her and film it and sell the film, I’m okay. No, not really. I don’t know the (!) ins and outs, but there’s more to making porn than just filming people having sex. ---
**Author:** ![Marley23](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@Marley23](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Marley23)\ **Post date:** [May 14, 2003, 1:44am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/let-me-see-if-i-understand-this-sorta-adult/175095/4 "2003-05-14T01:44:20Z")
> [@](#): > > If a woman offers me money to have sex with her for the express purpose of getting pregnant, she (and I) can go to jail. But if she pays a doctor to pay me to get the sperm and inject it inside her, that is okay. Sorta, but the issue in prostitution isn’t the sperm, it’s the paying for sex. Some women can only get pregnant through medical means, and it only makes sense that they pay for the service. Likewise (apparently), the doctors feel they need an incentive to make sure they get plenty of donors. There’s no sexual intercourse going on there. ---
**Author:** ![bouv](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/bc8723/32.png) [@bouv](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/bouv)\ **Post date:** [May 14, 2003, 3:09am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/let-me-see-if-i-understand-this-sorta-adult/175095/5 "2003-05-14T03:09:04Z")
Pornographic filmes and images work because YOU aren’t paying HER to have sex with you, BOTH of you (or all of you, in the case of more than two people) are getting paid to have your sex filmed and distributed. That’s basically one of the loopholes porn producers use. ---
**Author:** ![cmosdes](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/a587f6/32.png) [@cmosdes](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/cmosdes)\ **Post date:** [May 14, 2003, 5:03am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/let-me-see-if-i-understand-this-sorta-adult/175095/6 "2003-05-14T05:03:10Z")
To **bouv** and **Marley23** - Well, I wasn’t after a debate so I’ll not debate your rebuttals. I will simply state that while I understand the distinctions, I would think you’d have to admit that the line is rather fuzzy. ---
**Author:** ![bouv](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/bc8723/32.png) [@bouv](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/bouv)\ **Post date:** [May 14, 2003, 5:41am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/let-me-see-if-i-understand-this-sorta-adult/175095/7 "2003-05-14T05:41:36Z")
I’m certainly not debating anything here, I agree that the line is fuzzy, and if one, why not the other? I don’t personally feel that artificial insemination is like prostitution in the same way that porn is, but I can see where you’re coming from. ---
**Author:** ![Lizard](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/dfb087/32.png) [@Lizard](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lizard)\ **Post date:** [May 14, 2003, 6:25am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/let-me-see-if-i-understand-this-sorta-adult/175095/8 "2003-05-14T06:25:58Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by bouv \* > \*\*Pornographic filmes and images work because YOU aren’t paying HER to have sex with you, BOTH of you (or all of you, in the case of more than two people) are getting paid to have your sex filmed and distributed. That’s basically one of the loopholes porn producers use. \*\* According to rame.net, a non-pornographic website for fans of adult films, this matter has really only been resolved in California. This explains why virtually 100% of our domestic porn is shot there. The case in question dates from the mid-80s, and the site goes into the whole affair in some detail. But the meat of it is: > [@](#): > > The legality of paying performers to engage in sex acts on film is founded on two, independent theories, one grounded in state law, one in federal law. > > State Law: The statutory definition of “pandering” contains the word “prostitution”. The statutory definition of “prostitution” contains the word “lewd”. The common law definition of “lewd” requires, in relevant part, that the sex act be engaged in “for the purpose of sexual arousal or gratification of the customer or of the prostitute.” > > But the performers testified at trial that they were not having sex for pleasure, they were doing it for the money. Ditto Freeman. Moving up the chain of definition, Freeman – and all producers – are not guilty of pandering, and all performers are not guilty of prostitution. > > Federal Law: The Court made a number of points regarding Freeman’s federal constitutional protections. > > Non-obscene motion pictures are a form of artistic expression protected by the First Amendment. > Even if Freeman’s actions fell within the definition of “pandering,” he could not be prosecuted because his actions would be legal outside of the context of the adult video industry. In other words, a murder on film is illegal because murder is illegal _independent_ of the act of filming and paying the participants; the sex acts filmed by Freeman were considered illegal solely because he filmed and paid the actors. (In oral arguments, the deputy attorney general admitted that charges could not have been brought had the performers not been paid for their sex acts.) So there you have it. Yay freedom!