Login required to started new threads

Login required to post replies

Prev Next
Re: Porn company a cover for brothel. [veganerd] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
veganerd wrote:
j p o wrote:
veganerd wrote:
JSA wrote:
This does reveal the hypocrisy of some of these laws. You bring in a women, pay her $X to have sex with you on camera, no crime. You bring in a woman, per her $X to have sex with you w/o being on camera, crime of prostitution.

How does that make sense?


i started a thread about this a couple years ago. it boggles the mind!

also: buy someone a bunch of stuff on a date then have sex is ok. just giving them the cash instead of the date and just having sex is illegal.


I pretty much follow the George Carlin line of reasoning.



exactly.

on a related note, i wish carlin was still around to skewer our current administration.

If you *really* liked George, he's probably better off not having lived to see this...
Quote Reply
Re: Porn company a cover for brothel. [veganerd] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
veganerd wrote:
JSA wrote:
This does reveal the hypocrisy of some of these laws. You bring in a women, pay her $X to have sex with you on camera, no crime. You bring in a woman, per her $X to have sex with you w/o being on camera, crime of prostitution.

How does that make sense?


i started a thread about this a couple years ago. it boggles the mind!

also: buy someone a bunch of stuff on a date then have sex is ok. just giving them the cash instead of the date and just having sex is illegal.

So for a workaround can you go to, say, Home Depot and buy a $400 saw in cash, and then 'gift' your, uh, special date the new saw along w/ the receipt for her to return it to HD for a cash refund?
Quote Reply
Re: Porn company a cover for brothel. [JSA] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
JSA wrote:
orphious wrote:
Correct me if I am wrong but the difference is both people having sex on camera are being paid.

Not necessarily. In some of these films, the guy doing the filming is not getting paid. He is keeping and selling the video. So, he is not being paid to perform sex. He is paying to have sex performed on him. He makes his money selling the tape. The woman is being paid to perform sex and to appear in the video.

Wrong. The woman is auditioning for a nonexistent film and isn't being paid either.

“Read the transcript.”
Quote Reply
Re: Porn company a cover for brothel. [sslothrop] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
sslothrop wrote:
JSA wrote:
orphious wrote:
Correct me if I am wrong but the difference is both people having sex on camera are being paid.


Not necessarily. In some of these films, the guy doing the filming is not getting paid. He is keeping and selling the video. So, he is not being paid to perform sex. He is paying to have sex performed on him. He makes his money selling the tape. The woman is being paid to perform sex and to appear in the video.


Wrong. The woman is auditioning for a nonexistent film and isn't being paid either.

I'm gonna let you in on a little secret ... those are fake ...

But those weren't the ones I was talking about.

If there are no dogs in Heaven, then when I die I want to go where they went. - Will Rogers

Emery's Third Coast Triathlon | Tri Wisconsin Triathlon Team | Push Endurance | GLWR
Quote Reply
Re: Porn company a cover for brothel. [TheForge] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Personally I think anything between consenting adults should be legal including but not limited to prostitution, recreational drug use, polygamy, any kind of pornography, incest etc. So long as the parties involved are consenting adults it basically shouldn't be anyone else's business.
All that said I recently heard an interesting defense of prostitution. Note that one of the conclusions of the Citizen's United v. FEC decision was that contributing money is a kind of speech and thus is protected by the first amendment. If this is the case how can the federal government regulate how we spend money? Isn't paying a prostitute just expressing yourself?
Quote Reply
Re: Porn company a cover for brothel. [OneGoodLeg] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
OneGoodLeg wrote:
veganerd wrote:
j p o wrote:
veganerd wrote:
JSA wrote:
This does reveal the hypocrisy of some of these laws. You bring in a women, pay her $X to have sex with you on camera, no crime. You bring in a woman, per her $X to have sex with you w/o being on camera, crime of prostitution.

How does that make sense?


i started a thread about this a couple years ago. it boggles the mind!

also: buy someone a bunch of stuff on a date then have sex is ok. just giving them the cash instead of the date and just having sex is illegal.


I pretty much follow the George Carlin line of reasoning.



exactly.

on a related note, i wish carlin was still around to skewer our current administration.


If you *really* liked George, he's probably better off not having lived to see this...

As of today same situation exists in Maine for marijuana. Legal to possess and use but can't sell it, but you can give it away.
Quote Reply

Prev Next