Wonder who infected the prostitute in the first place? Wonder if he infected his girlfriend/wife as well, eh?
Is there really a difference between pornography and prostitution ?
- Thread starter Challenger78
- Start date
Wonder who infected the prostitute in the first place? Wonder if he infected his girlfriend/wife as well, eh?
LOL
Not well, trust me. To be fair, I'm a dude, so all I really care about is humping until I fall asleep...and even then, I'll only stop if you roll me over.
That's an apt comparison and description. The same method could be used to describe a medical doctor and a dentist.
You have to understand shorty has a broad definition of the word Indians
http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=2039782&postcount=73
:shrug:
Not well, trust me. To be fair, I'm a dude, so all I really care about is humping until I fall asleep...and even then, I'll only stop if you roll me over.
That's an apt comparison and description. The same method could be used to describe a medical doctor and a dentist.
Sure why not? I think a pornstar has as much choice in rejecting an "unattractive" co-star as a call girl has in rejecting an unattractive john. Personally, the only difference is that the pornstar also gets royalties [hopefully] and has to be photogenic or at least marginally attractive. While a prostitute just has to be.
The difference, of course, is number of partners ....unless the first guy was an "addict" or lucky to have numerous partners or something.
Perhaps we should all be required to pick one sex partner at puberty .....and never, ever, be permitted to have sex with anyone else for as long as we live?
Baron Max
Or we should just keep our big fat noses out of other people's sex lives? Unless of course voyeurism floats your boat....
Would you feel the same way if your wife came home from a "date" and infected you with STDs?
Would you feel the same way if your daughter came home from a "date" and you discovered that she was infected by some guy?
See? It does affect our lives ...some more than others, but still.....
But then, maybe we shouldn't worry about it. Soon everyone on Earth will have all of the STDs that's possible to have, then it won't matter who they have sex with. But thankfully I'll be dead by then, so why should I care?
Baron Max
Well I wouldn't trust anyone who'd be dumb enough to marry me.
I would attempt to educate my daughter before she went on that date.
Where there is sex there is STD. Either get over it or get someone to wear a condom. Prevention is better than cure. Simple when you know how.
Last edited:
man, this is one bad post...
And prostitutes aren't? Quite a few are, at least my Butterfly is. (did I say too much?)
So are whores. I bet there are more whores with college degrees than pornstars, by the way.
As an asnwer to the OP, morally it is the same, legally it isn't...
And prostitutes aren't? Quite a few are, at least my Butterfly is. (did I say too much?)
So are whores. I bet there are more whores with college degrees than pornstars, by the way.
As an asnwer to the OP, morally it is the same, legally it isn't...
At least you admit it before you write it...I appreciate the warning.
But most aren't.
No, dude, the point is that both parties in a porno are paid. Did the prostitute pay you? No. That changes the whole dynamic of it. The guy in the porn isn't paying for the sex; he's being paid.
Considering that most prostitutes are drug addicts under the control of brutal pimps...I'd have to disagree with you on that one. And I'd also disagree simply because you didn't base that ridiculous assumption on anything of merit.
Morally? According to whom?
well if both the men and the women followed the rules then they would use protection and there wouldnt be any worries about them spreeding infections would there,
however it is not just down to the woman it is also down to the guy to use protection, if the man doesnt insist or the woman doesnt insist then they run that risk
that is one big assumtption dont you think? why can't women and men do it because they enjoy it?
i know girls who worked in that area and none of them are drug abusers and under control of pimps, they are in a safe enviroment and they are looked after and shouldnt that be the way
There are some that do. Those are probably ones that work at higher-class places. But more often than not, they are poor young girls that are basically stolen from their lives by pimps and addicted to some form of drug.
Again, there are some like that yes. But there are far more girls in the street than in the kind of places that can protect them, and the majority of street prostitutes are controlled by pimps and/or hooked on drugs.
Since I wrote the post, take a wild guess!
By the way note, I didn't say it was good or bad, just that they were the same.
I think you are over simplifying. In particular I've never seen porn stars self report as prostitutes or prostitutes self report as porn stars. Granted my sampling is small but both groups have a presence on the web. You could ask them directly.
Lot's of people fuck for money, surrogote mothers, sperm donars, debutantes, etc. That doesn't mean they are all prostitutes.
[corrected]You are still ignoring every one and everything else involved. A hit man and a doctor both cut people for money. Are doctors hit men?
This and that
So you said. I've never seen Christians self-report as a hate group°, either; and, frankly, while I have heard a porn star self-identify as a prostitute, it wasn't explicit In fact I recall it an the old joke: He told me I was a cheap whore, and that pissed me off. I'm not cheap.
Actually, I'm not. But if it makes you feel better to say so, go for it. In truth, I remember snorting at whatever your example was then. And, frankly, the corrected form doesn't do much better:
Revisit the post you responded to the first time you made this post.
The problem with comparing doctors and hit men is that the purpose is essential. If a hit man healed his victim, the cardinal aspect of what constitutes hit man—e.g. contract murder—evaporates. If a doctor cut a patient with the intent of causing death at someone else's behest, the cardinal aspect of why one is a doctor—e.g., healing—disappears.
Likewise, if you take the sexual act out of prostitution, it becomes something else entirely, such as massage or performance art. Take the sexual act out of pornography, and it becomes mere drama.
Consider a contract in which a female porn actress stipulated specifically that she will not perform with Ron Jeremy. Beyond that, generally it didn't matter. Pay attention to modifiers such as adverbs. You seem to be reading certain sentences as if they were absolute declarations, as if modifiers like generally and essentially aren't there.
While there are certain aspects of my last significant relationship° that contribute to your point, those circumstances are generally deviations from significant relationships.
Of significant relationships in general, what is—nodding to CM89's point—the tangible profit exchanged, and from which party to the other, in significant relationships in general?
I suppose it largely depends on where and how you identify the cardinal aspect of the occupations.
The cardinal aspect—that without which the prostitute stops being a prostitute and the porn star stops being a porn star—is the sexual act in exchange for money. Certainly, you can introduce "amateurs" who film themselves and then try to sell DVDs, but also in that, you need to account for the number of prostitutes circulating as objects of pornography. As a seriously-intended questions for your own consideration (I don't need a specific answer): How much pornography do you look at? And where do you get it? And what does it look like? For instance, if I said, "Go get a Gnutella client and search for video of prostitute, amateur, or crack whore", would I be recommending a new experience for you? If so, well, take the time. Once people have a world's worth of free porn at your fingertips, many will take the grand tour and peek in on things they never would have looked at otherwise.
And you even bothered to tag the italics around the word "no". Which is only so cute because it's so wrong.
Well, that would explain your strange presumptions about courting.
_____________________
Notes:
° Christians self-report as a hate group — Westboro Baptist Church, for instance.
° certain aspects of my last significant relationship — It was a bit of a mess, and it really is difficult to figure who was the prostitute and who was the client, as roles and currency, by this outlook, switched repeatedly. Was she fucking me for a place to live? Was I fucking her for drugs? Even as such, the questions aren't so clear-cut; I wasn't the primary lease-holder, and she wasn't the only person buying drugs. Nonetheless, very little about our relationship was not statistically deviant, unless you're willing to assert that the general nature of significant relationships is people so sharply dissatisfied with one another over a period of years continue to torture themselves like that. There is broad consensus from literally everyone who observed that relationship and cared to comment that it was abnormal.
Swarm said:
So you said. I've never seen Christians self-report as a hate group°, either; and, frankly, while I have heard a porn star self-identify as a prostitute, it wasn't explicit In fact I recall it an the old joke: He told me I was a cheap whore, and that pissed me off. I'm not cheap.
Actually, I'm not. But if it makes you feel better to say so, go for it. In truth, I remember snorting at whatever your example was then. And, frankly, the corrected form doesn't do much better:
Revisit the post you responded to the first time you made this post.
The similarity is essential. The word essential is defined, in this context, "of, relating to, or constituting". Synonyms include fundamental, vital, and cardinal. The jobs are fundamentally the same. The vital similarity is that they both fuck for money. The cardinal aspect (e.g., without which the practice disappears) is the idea of sexual acts in exchange for money.
The problem with comparing doctors and hit men is that the purpose is essential. If a hit man healed his victim, the cardinal aspect of what constitutes hit man—e.g. contract murder—evaporates. If a doctor cut a patient with the intent of causing death at someone else's behest, the cardinal aspect of why one is a doctor—e.g., healing—disappears.
Likewise, if you take the sexual act out of prostitution, it becomes something else entirely, such as massage or performance art. Take the sexual act out of pornography, and it becomes mere drama.
• • •
JDawg said:
Consider a contract in which a female porn actress stipulated specifically that she will not perform with Ron Jeremy. Beyond that, generally it didn't matter. Pay attention to modifiers such as adverbs. You seem to be reading certain sentences as if they were absolute declarations, as if modifiers like generally and essentially aren't there.
While there are certain aspects of my last significant relationship° that contribute to your point, those circumstances are generally deviations from significant relationships.
Of significant relationships in general, what is—nodding to CM89's point—the tangible profit exchanged, and from which party to the other, in significant relationships in general?
I suppose it largely depends on where and how you identify the cardinal aspect of the occupations.
The cardinal aspect—that without which the prostitute stops being a prostitute and the porn star stops being a porn star—is the sexual act in exchange for money. Certainly, you can introduce "amateurs" who film themselves and then try to sell DVDs, but also in that, you need to account for the number of prostitutes circulating as objects of pornography. As a seriously-intended questions for your own consideration (I don't need a specific answer): How much pornography do you look at? And where do you get it? And what does it look like? For instance, if I said, "Go get a Gnutella client and search for video of prostitute, amateur, or crack whore", would I be recommending a new experience for you? If so, well, take the time. Once people have a world's worth of free porn at your fingertips, many will take the grand tour and peek in on things they never would have looked at otherwise.
And you even bothered to tag the italics around the word "no". Which is only so cute because it's so wrong.
Well, that would explain your strange presumptions about courting.
_____________________
Notes:
° Christians self-report as a hate group — Westboro Baptist Church, for instance.
° certain aspects of my last significant relationship — It was a bit of a mess, and it really is difficult to figure who was the prostitute and who was the client, as roles and currency, by this outlook, switched repeatedly. Was she fucking me for a place to live? Was I fucking her for drugs? Even as such, the questions aren't so clear-cut; I wasn't the primary lease-holder, and she wasn't the only person buying drugs. Nonetheless, very little about our relationship was not statistically deviant, unless you're willing to assert that the general nature of significant relationships is people so sharply dissatisfied with one another over a period of years continue to torture themselves like that. There is broad consensus from literally everyone who observed that relationship and cared to comment that it was abnormal.
tiassa i could suggest that the difference is symilar to the difference between a nurse practitioner (i was going to say doctor but that seems to piss certain members off) in a hospital compared to an ambo
that is one works in what is essentually a controled enviroment where as the other works in an uncontroled one. They both provide medical assistance but that doesnt make them the same
that is one works in what is essentually a controled enviroment where as the other works in an uncontroled one. They both provide medical assistance but that doesnt make them the same
If your hypothesis were correct, we should hear prostitutes self reporting as porn stars, since that is a legal profession and doesn’t carry the stigma of being a prostitute. But we don’t.
That must have been some snort. You are trying to reduce two different professions to a single act and it is not working. Porn stars don’t solicit for example. Prostitutes don’t reshoot the same sex act 30 times.
No the problem is you are you are arbitrarily deciding what is “essential” and what is not. So the key point is healing? Then I guess doctors and nurses are the same? Because they both heal for money.
Oh FYI, you don’t have to actually have sex to be a porn star. I know this will shock you but soft core can be entirely suggestion and camera angles. No need to pay the extra cost and risk of real penetration.
So is prostitution still prostitution without the sex?
Congratulations
In the first place, being a legal porn star involves engaging in simulated sex acts. At least, that's how it works in the United States.
Actually, I'm not. That's just the only part you've bothered to acknowledge.
Their agents do that for them. Many prostitutes have pimps. And we use more polite words, like "madam" for that role in a brothel.
If you have to re-shoot a porn scene thirty times, there's something seriously wrong on the set. The come-shot might have to be taken a couple of times, but the more your actor has to wipe semen off his or her face for the same shot, the lower your reputation as a director will fall.
As I noted to JDawg: I suppose it largely depends on where and how you identify the cardinal aspect of the occupations.
I don't think the difference between healing and killing is arbitrary. These are cardinal aspects of the two professions in question.
See above.
I don't know, are we counting politicians?
Well, in the United States, the definition of prostitution generally includes any sexual act exchanged for money. So even if you picked someone up on the street and paid them money to masturbate for your private viewing, it's still an act of prostitution.
However, I will give you credit for invoking softcore pornography. After all, it didn't even occur to the thread starter, and thus wasn't part of the question to begin with.
Congratulations.
Swarm said:
In the first place, being a legal porn star involves engaging in simulated sex acts. At least, that's how it works in the United States.
Actually, I'm not. That's just the only part you've bothered to acknowledge.
Their agents do that for them. Many prostitutes have pimps. And we use more polite words, like "madam" for that role in a brothel.
If you have to re-shoot a porn scene thirty times, there's something seriously wrong on the set. The come-shot might have to be taken a couple of times, but the more your actor has to wipe semen off his or her face for the same shot, the lower your reputation as a director will fall.
As I noted to JDawg: I suppose it largely depends on where and how you identify the cardinal aspect of the occupations.
I don't think the difference between healing and killing is arbitrary. These are cardinal aspects of the two professions in question.
See above.
I don't know, are we counting politicians?
Well, in the United States, the definition of prostitution generally includes any sexual act exchanged for money. So even if you picked someone up on the street and paid them money to masturbate for your private viewing, it's still an act of prostitution.
However, I will give you credit for invoking softcore pornography. After all, it didn't even occur to the thread starter, and thus wasn't part of the question to begin with.
Congratulations.
Tiassa said:
No, I read those modifiers as inaccurate statements. As in, how do you know it generally doesn't matter who a pornstar has sex with? You make these assumptions clearly not having the first clue as to their validity. And then you hide behind these assertions by saying "But I said "generally"!"
Bogus.
Ah, no wonder you have such a fucked-up view on sex. You must have gotten burned bad.
Nice way to weasel out of that one...
But pornstars aren't paid for sexual acts. They are paid for performances. So your "cardinal aspect" is flawed.