Why porn's legal and prostitution isn't

[Fawkes]

...in the U.S.

One of my friends posted this on facebook:

"Why is prostitution illegal if porn isn't? Easy answer. Porn can be taxed."

To which I responded:


because with porn you are viewing other people engage in sexual acts, it's a form of entertainment for a third party. the assumption is that everyone involved in a porno is a paid actor, and what you are watching is those actors doing whatever the hell they may be doing in front of a camera that people then watch from their homes for their own private pleasure. with prostitution, you are paying someone directly to engage in sexual acts with you and give you pleasure, and in doing so, you turn sex and the pleasure received from it into something with no inherent meaning or significance. that flies right in the face of the whole assumption of sex as something that is solely done between two hetero people that love each other which forms a big part of the basis upon which hetero nuclear families are structured. obviously porn has the same effect, but the fact that it is distant and is something that's watched and not directly experienced makes its assimilation into the realm of (semi-)accepted cultural practices easier.

Ideas? Additions? Critiques? I'm an idiot?

[Magón]

It's true. Porn has to have some "acting"/story to it, because if it doesn't then the Gov., etc. sees it as prostitution.

[CitizenSmith]

It is an interesting dynamic in US law, that essentially, you can hire a prostitue, and as long as you record whatever you get up to, it's legal, but if you do not, then it's illegal. I've never really understood this doublethink, although I am not american myself.

[Rjevan]

^This. The only difference is that pornography is indirect while prostitution is direct. Both are about paying consenting adults (if we accept this definition for a moment and exclude "for free" amateur porn) to perform sexual acts for your pleasure. The acting is irrelevant, often minimal and only done for legal reasons and there's also gonzo porn without any story.

I'd also argue against the idea that "porn is no direct experience and therefore has less influence on society and is more acceptable". Apart from the "actors" directly experiencing what would be considered illegal if the camera team wasn't present people also don't watch it from a sound distance but are "into it". Of course there's a huge difference between, let's say, watching a Mafia movie and joining the "family" in real life but unlike the Mafia movie porn is used to gain sexual pleasure and thus is an intense experience with a strong influence on you, imo.

[jake williams]

I think part of the theory may be, at least implicitly, that porn at least in principle happens "in public", and thus is safe to regulate, whereas prostitution happens "in private", and so is a shadowy place where bad things can happen without public knowledge.

Are there any cases where people charged with prostitution have gotten off the charge claiming it was porn, because they'd taped it? (Whether or not they'd distributed it).

I think a lot of the practical reasons, though, are liberals' and lawyers' obsession with "speech" as some abstractly amoral ideal of human practice.

[Tenka]

Isn't it also true that, in the U.S., you can never have enough excuses to jail the poor? Prostitution, cannabis possession... The illegality of those things really has nothing to do with them not being taxable (they pretty surely are, anyway); it has a bit to do with U.S. social conservatism, but I think it's mostly just that our ruling class benefits from making criminals out of people (cheap prison labour, increasingly privatised penal system...).

[jake williams]

I think it's mostly just that our ruling class benefits from making criminals out of people (cheap prison labour, increasingly privatised penal system...).
I'm not so sure it's that so much as it's a) political capital, and b) strengthens weapons of repression against political enemies.

Regarding a), it's difficult to disagree with someone claiming to be "tough on crime", even if you're only advocating policies which would actually reduce crime. And like on most populist issues, the bourgeois "left" is also nervous politically about advocating those policies which would reduce crime for their own class-political reasons. So you win points for advocating it, lose points for criticizing it, and it doesn't really cost you anything other than taxpayer's money which, like you point out, you can end up getting back through private prisons, prison guard unions etc. In this sense it's quite a bit like abortion - the ruling class doesn't actually have any serious ideological commitment to fetuses, but making abortion a political issue can win them points at no personal cost (abortion laws don't hurt the rich) and squeeze out other issues.

Regarding b), the policing of marijuana in the US got really intense when it was discovered that it could be used to target anti-war and other left wing activists which they couldn't charge with other crimes. There isn't any intense ideological commitment on the part of politicians to stop prostitution, because the politicians are the ones buying sex more than almost anyone else. But they benefit from almost any expansion of state power, as part of the class which controls the state.

[lots of laughs]

Porn is free speech, something protected in the constitution (the government "shall make no law ... abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press"). At least that is what I thought. But I'm not sure having read Wikipedia on the subject: * en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right_to_pornography * en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution# Obscenity

[CitizenSmith]

Isn't it also true that, in the U.S., you can never have enough excuses to jail the poor? Prostitution, cannabis possession... The illegality of those things really has nothing to do with them not being taxable (they pretty surely are, anyway); it has a bit to do with U.S. social conservatism, but I think it's mostly just that our ruling class benefits from making criminals out of people (cheap prison labour, increasingly privatised penal system...).

This is certainly true, interesting how the 'higher' class of prostitution, escorts, are not classified as prostitutues as you are paying for there company, rather than expicitly for sex, even though sex is an integeral part of an escorts' job.

But then when did the law ever apply to the wealthy.

[Rakhmetov]

Porn is prolefeed so it is used to lull the minds the proletariat and keep them stupefied with images of breasts, anuses, penises, and vaginas. :(

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prolefeed

[danyboy27]

Porn is prolefeed so it is used to lull the minds the proletariat and keep them stupefied with images of breasts, anuses, penises, and vaginas. :(

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prolefeed


porn would still exist in a non-capitalist society.

[tbasherizer]

The whole 'it can't be taxed' punchline to what must be a joke on the part of the person asking the rhetorical question about any banned substance/activity is ideologically related to the idea that government is a monolithic entity in its own right, and not merely a tool of class dictatorship. Therefore, Marxists and any serious anarchists (don't worry, I include anyone on his forum in that category; I don't mean to demean anyone here) have to come up with better explanations than those offered by these political jesters.

My explanation of why cannabis is illegal or why prostitution is illegal is just to point at the backwardness of the ruling class. You can be sure that any rich bourgeois-type bastard is going to be deeply steeped in some kind of social conservatism. Since they call the shots in the media, stigma is associated with the things in question and as a result, political inertia is generated. There's no conspiracy, as those funny pseudo-libertarians suggest, of the state trying to squeeze out tax dollars out of everything it can and banning what it can't.

In short, I agree with what seems to be the consensus so far: Pornography is indirect, but prostitution makes the prudish types more squeamish due to it's 'directness'.

[Rakhmetov]

porn would still exist in a non-capitalist society.


Not as prevalent as it is now. :rolleyes:

[Honggweilo]

the dutch government taxes prostitution, so that kinda debunks that.

[tracher999]

ligalize it all problem solft:D

[danyboy27]

Not as prevalent as it is now. :rolleyes:

why not?

human being love sex, they love the representation of sexual acts on films, movies, books, arts, its been there for thousand of years. When pornographic movies where not present, people purchased erotic novels and pamphlet, purchased erotics drawing.

i dont see the demand decreasing after the revolution, people will still love sex and will look for porn.

[danyboy27]

The legality of prostition is i think dirrectly linked to the influence of some butthurt moralists.

That really the only thing that stand in the way of legalization in many countries, moralists or politically correct old fart outraged with people selling their body for cash.

Well breaking fucking news, i already sell my body for cash, i move shit around all day, i dont see why someone who want to do sex for cash should be treated differently than me, those people should enjoy the same right has i do, enjoy the same protection has i do.

Its not even an economical argument anymore, capitalist see that has a good thing, and most leftist has well, for different reason, granted, but both agree on the fundamental that making prostitution illegal is fucking ridiculous.