I don’t mean in the moral sense, but in the legal sense. I mean aren’t they having sex for money?
And does it mean that if a “client” solicited a prostitute for sex, but filmed it, he could argue that he was paying her for - i dont know what you’d call it - “porn work”, not prostitution, and she could likewise argue the same?
I’ll need a quick answer on this, as my court date looms.
Just a guess but maybe because a prostitute accepts money from a client whereas someone in pornography is contracted?
Would be the same as amateur vs. professional.
IIRC, it isn’t deemed prostitution because both parties are being paid to perform on camera, e.g. act, as opposed to the john paying a hooker for irrespecial sex act.
And all this time I thought you worked in a hospital. 
One of our most popular questions:
ianal/p/p (lawyer, prostitute, nor pornographer) but i think it may have something to do with prostitutes being paid for sexual acts, while porn stars are paid for “acting”
also, i believe it is usually the case that porn stars are paid by someone other than the other porn star(s) they appear on film with. this might be one of the mechanisms by which the law distinguishes pron from prostitution.
It could be because the person paying the actress is not the one being gratified. The Paying person is not receiving sex, so he or she is not soliciting sex from a pro in return for $$$. The producer is simply trying to make a profit from the sale of the film. A fine point, but such distinctions are the fulcrum upon which laws balance. The other actor did not pay to have sex with the actress, so HE isn’t soliciting anything from her either.
This raises the question of self-produced porn. If a guy pays a porn star to screw him on film, is it then prostitution? Like in the OP, a john could set up a camera and claim he was making a film. This is the kind of legal question I’d love to ask a prosecutor but know better than to do so.
I was too slow in my post and EVERYBODY beat me to it.
Uglybeech, you didn’t mention what state you’re in, so YMMV. For Florida (the state I’m most familiar with), the law states (FSS 796.07):
It pretty much sounds like acting in a porn film would fit. And I think the arguments about the pleasee not being the one paying wouldn’t make a difference; it if did, then everyone could get around prostitution laws by having a third-party (the John’s buddy, for example) make the payment.
IANAL, but very experienced in an aspect of the situation.
Well done, Exapno.
OK OK two or three threads would have sufficed. By the 9th link you were just rubbing it in.
Still I’m sure noone objects to revisiting the admittedly dry topic of prostitutes and pornography.
Yup it’s the best little hospital in Massachusetts 
(to answer Raza’s question).
I’ll have to review the 9 previous threads on the issue but in the meantime I’m guessing the producer isn’t barred from acting in porn from what I’ve seen…cough…I mean heard.
Just make sure you don’t post to one of those threads - next rub it in will be the standard who revived this old thread
:o
Good timing… this weekend in Las Vegas is the Adult Video Entertainment convention (same time as the Consumer Electronics Show)… maybe I can ask this question of the ladies myself…
Because the state and federal government recieve taxes for porn whoring, while pimps take the cash from the street whores.
What if my friend paid a girl to have sex with me while my friend taped it?
Because porn stars are famous. Whores are not.
Therefore porn stars are glamorous, whereas prostitutes are low and degraded.
Huge difference, right? :rolleyes:
WAG: Acting in a porn movie may well be regarded as prostitution (as a matter of law), but in many jurisdictions prostitution, as such, is not a crime. What is criminalised is much of the associated activity; soliciting, streetwalking, brothel-keeping, pimping, etc. So long as the porn industry chooses its production locations carefully and organises itself so as to avoid activity which is criminalised, the fact that it involves prostitution may not be a problem.
They’re paid to for acting, not “acting”. Check the linked threads.
For as often as this question comes up, I sent it off to Cecil. Dex responded as such:
So with any luck, we’ll eventually have a column to link to when this question pops up again.
Porn kicked into high gear in California after the conviction in the case of California vs. Freeman was overturned in the State’s highest Court, and the appeal rejected for consideration at the Supreme Court level by Justice O’Connor.
The first link Exapno Mapcase provided contains a lengthy quote of O’Connor’s official decision.
In a nutshell:
Freeman was charged with five counts of pandering for hiring five actors for a porn film. However, he was not hit with any obscenity charges.
Under California Law, prostution the the performance of lewd acts for money.
A lewd act is one in which various predictable body parts are placed in contact with the body of another person for the purpose of sexual arousal or gratification for either the customer or the prostitute.
The State Supreme Court ruled the payments to be “acting fees”, paid for performing in a film rather than committing lewd acts for money, and decided that declaring that you can not pay someone to appear in a non-obscene film would be a violation of the First Amendment. O’Connor more or less concurred with the SSC’s opinion, and the matter was closed.
And the floodgates opened.
So if I live in California and I hire five “actors” to have sex (possibly with me or my wife) and then film the whole thing (throwing in a few bad lines and some corny music) I can pay them right? Maybe, this could be turned into a business (just for extra security all of the “actors” would pay the fee and fill out the paperwork to join the screen actors guild).