Question

The pornography industry is one of the most lucrative in the nation— some estimates are that it grosses more than $4 billion annually—however the women and girls who work in this industry see very little of that money. Prostitution as well is highly profitable for a growing number of pimps and human traffickers selling both women and children. What are the legal and moral differences between these two types of sex work, and how have changing social norms contributed to the legal status of both today?

Answer 1

Stars are paid for acting; sex is paid by prostitutes. When part of their jobs, actors may engage in sex— they likely follow a script— but that doesn't count when hire sex. Sex in making a movie or a picture is merely an old expression, protected under the First Amendment. Free-speech proponents argue that this should be valid of "gonzo" movies, where the individual behind the camera is also involved in the action; however, no major cases have been brought to court. Nonetheless, live sex shows have provided less coverage compared to sexually explicit news.

Since the 1950s, pornography has enjoyed immunity from First Amendment. Pornography was considered obscene in the early 20th century, but it was also relatively rare. It wasn't until adult films became more popular that more attention was paid by the authorities. A research became indecent if it appealed to prurious interests, insulted the values of the community, and had no social value. Nevertheless, prosecutors found that to have any social value, everything could be built. So the current standard, called the Miller check, now clearly defines work without any significant literary, cultural, political, or scientific value.

It is legal to have consensual sex. But as long as one person provides cash to another in exchange for sex and the money is accepted on a voluntary basis, it is called prostitution, and that is illegal. This is contradictory, illogical and squandering-and it must stop. You may think that sex work is an unethical lifestyle. But it's certainly no less ethical than a casual' hooking up' lifestyle, or the professional athlete or rock star's stereotypical lifestyle which brags about how many women he's had sex with.It is the government's duty to protect property rights and prosecute people who are bullying or imposing themselves on others. The government should, however, stop wasting money on voluntary, adult sexual transactions. It's time to put an end to this unethical and unnecessary prosecution of sex workers and their clients.

Most countries have responded by criminalizing prostituted women and sometimes buyers to male demand for commercial sexual access. Underlying this policy is the presumption that prostitution is a public nuisance, a result of unethical decision-making requiring public order crimes to be regulated. Under a criminal regime, all forms of prostitution are technically illegal, including (1) brotheling or pandering, which intentionally promotes or compels a person to sell sex for money, (2) pimping, obtaining sex for money.

Guided by neoconservatism, every state, except parts of Nevada, criminalizes women "involving or attempting to engage in sexual intercourse for money." Approximately half of these states also have criminal laws punishing men who buy sex for prostitution. And so, criminalization laws in the United States are primarily the responsibility of dealers (mainly women) rather than buyers.