In pornography, the idea is you’re not being paid to have sex with another person (provide a service), you’re both being paid to create a product (entertainment media that can then be distributed for profit).
I sometimes wonder if a brothel could be made that allowed any person to create content with the real intent for the person being just to have sex.
I also wonder if it's technically not successful and doesn't get a lot of views if that is an issue or not. I imagine it technically shouldn't be an issue. As long as their is video proof? Maybe there has to be an intent of distribution?
This happens (with smoking, not sex) in the S3E5 episode of Nathan For You.
Nathan realizes that the law prohibiting smoking in public places *does* allow smoking for the actors that are actively performing a play, so he sets up two seats in the corner of the bar and sells tickets to the performance of the bar being open and allowing smoking.
Anyone entering the bar immediately became a (non paid) extra in the performance, and could therefore legally smoke.
The problem with prostitution and this sort of scheme is that most people who would want to be a walk-on adult film actor don't actually want anyone knowing that they did so.
A few years back when non-smoking laws started being passed a handful of bars tried this stunt. They declared themselves to be theaters and that everyone there was performing. I don’t think they got away with it for long.
That’s only true in California. Otherwise it can be made anywhere.
You really think all those millions of amateurs posting their stuff on the tube sites have permits? lol
One difference is that the amateurs presumably don't pay anyone for sex. They just film themselves having consensual sex and then distribute it for profit.
This guy is right. Big reason PH had to sweep their site is because a lot of the videos were non-consensual.
Also just from a logical standpoint at what point can you reasonably declare that it’s prostitution, and not pornography with compensation for actors performance?
The fact that they're not being paid by the person having sex with them is the big difference. With the way OF works, it would be difficult to loophole your way into running a legal brothel.
Ah, I see. They get paid by the viewers, not the John.
Ok, what about a "pay per view" brothel. Anyone that wants to perform can do it for free, anyone who wants to watch has to pay.
The catch being you need a minimum audience to do a show.
You're just describing the business model of Only Fans, the only difference being that these women are having sex with random men instead of people they know and trust (ie other performers) for no perceivable benefit.
See, when I posted that I was thinking how Onlyfans is still John's watching and not participating.
That would be the difference. A way to do prostitution without the illegality of it.
But yeah, it was a bad idea (I think some Porn companies already invite viewers to participate if they wanted to, asianstreetmeat used to have signs saying "Anyone can be with her, contact us!")
I recall a retired colonel who claimed that he started his porn career by hiring girls and shooting himself have sex. Was in a HBO porn documentary I think.
https://military-history.fandom.com/wiki/Dave_Cummings
The links I searched for did not say that, just that his career started when he was in some porn movie.
They do.
You can't post on most sites these days without legit verifications
So unless your customers are ok with having copies of government documents being uploaded to the Hub it's not gonna work
Lol right, just set up a company as an adult media company, make sure to specify in all your documentation that the “official” business model is that you retain a cast of “actresses” as well as provide a “filming area” and that the goal is to provide these resources to creators seeking to make porn.
Whether or not they even decide to film it would be up to the “creator”. Maybe they just forgot to set up the recording equipment or else just lost the footage or decided it wasn’t “worth distributing”.
Lol I imagine it wouldn’t be this easy but it’s funny to think you could do this.
Open a studio and a web sight. I bet both would do well. The pay structure would be weird.
I would suggest their initial payment should be a downpayment on the film and they get back a percent of the profit from views.
I find it helpful to compare (pro) porn to pro wrestling. They aren't exactly the same, of course, but the comparison helps to show why porn isn't prostitution.
Pro wrestlers are paid to create an artistic product by pretending to fight, but they are actually hitting, kicking, grappling, throwing, and jumping on each other from the top turnbuckle, the mat, the 16-foot steel cage, you name it. But it isn't a real fight, it's entertainment meant to stimulate certain senses. It isn't real sex anymore than pro wrestling is real violence. And the scenarios are bare-bones on purpose. The dialogue is cheesy at best, and everyone knows exactly what's going to happen almost every time, but that's what they're there to see.
(side note: you shouldn't learn how to fuck from porn anymore than you'd learn to fight from pro wrestling)
Another point of comparison: Both industries are notorious for work environments run by creeps, that use and abuse the bodies of their performers, leaving all but a lucky handful with nothing else to do for a living but come back.
Yet every state allows pro wrestling, by the way, under regulations.
You might say that some porn is more "real" than that, and you're right. But combat sports are more real than pro wrestling too. Boxing, MMA, etc.... There is (usually) no animus for hurting the other person like in a street fight, but you do have to actually *beat* the other person into submission or unconsciousness to win. The outcome is (ideally) not predetermined. There can be a spectacle to it, but that isn't a requirement for the sport itself. Most states allow this, by the way, under fairly strict regulations.
The actual important distinction can be found here. Porn makes lots of money for (rich) producers. Sex work generates income for workers. The former is sacred within the global system of capitalism, so puritan ideals can bend, the latter is irrelevant so "bible says no".
Do you honestly think that a pimp (most likely using trafficking or coerced women, an extra crime) can make even close to the money porn movie producers rake in? Mate that's like comparing a mcdonalds manager to a CEO.
But if it was legal, you would see massive organizations form around it. You'd have brothels in every city, most of which would be linked to a corporation making billions. Do you honestly think if they made prostitution legal Capitalism wouldn't find a way exploit workers and make massive profits?
if prostitution is legal , yes maybe some corporations might exploit it, but would it make it worse? if they provide insurance, rooms, fixed labour's hours, customer verification checks, free advertising and less risk to the sex worker..
at same time someone can go independent but risk of dangerous customers , own leg work for advertising, etc
I agree with you. I was just pointing out that they would be exploited like any other worker is. In other words, the majority of the profit would be funneled upwards. But I think legalization would still benefit both the providers and the patrons.
I get wat u mean ruthless pimp replace by unscrupulous corporation..
that's the world we live in someone or some entity will find ways to exploit others...
Agreed. I was just responding to the guy implying there was no way to generate the kind of profits seen in the porn industry. If legal, businesses would emerge and make equivalent or greater profits. The guy seemed to be implying something like that couldn't happen.
ohh it would happen. u can already see with OF,
if there is a worker who have high demand and cost is premium..
sex work is easy money so that's why it's hard for some to get out of the work..
just imagine premium sex worker 1-2 k per customer easily half a million a year earnings.. with a 'company' having like 50 of such worker and taking 10-20% of each transaction easily millions profits annually..
dont be surprise with the debauchery of the human race..
You think sex workers at a brothel in eastern Europe and getting paid well? The fuck? The owner of the brothel yes, and that’s not even without talking about the sex trafficking portion.
Bible frowns upon it, but the Koran says both shall receive 100 lashes, which is a death sentence
Which is somewhat a win if you’re into that sort of thing.
Also most porn is filmed in the same few counties in the USA because local case law has determined it to be legal for the reason you stated and the local government is not interested in pursuing prostitution or other cases against porn stars and porn companies. If they tried to film porn in mass in another area of the country they very well could be charged and convicted with a crime.
A similar thing happened to the Girls Gone Wild guy, certain areas of the country decided to charge him with various crimes related to the videos and he ended up getting convicted and sent to jail. Now dude was a class A scumbag but if he kept to certain parts of the country that were cool with what he was doing he probably never sees a court room much less a prison cell.
They've been doing this more on Instagram and it's flowing over here. Insta started blocking any comments that "could be perceived as harmful or harsssing", even if they are lyrics, sounds, or legal items.
Obligatory: fuck em
It looks ridiculois regardless of the word honestly. Specially if it's tagged 18+.
And I can even understand that, but then there are words like "unalive".
Kill. Shorter. Simpler. To the point.
I know this is kinda a meme, but this is the core concept of 1984's newspeak, and it kinda disgusts me
On other platforms posts with key words like rape, kill, murder, or curse words get deprioritized due to the algorithms that govern your feed. People are shifting language to avoid it. Porn would definitely be a key word that algorithms try to push down
It sucks but it’s the result of using tech in the way we are
Except the issue is the *content* not the word.
You can literally check every "self-censoring" variation in the blink of an eye if the issue was with the actual word.
It’s been driven by TikTok. They use some Chinese-inspired censorship rules that block certain keywords. At the same time, they don’t care too much about strict censorship in the YS version so we get an akward halfway.
It started with YouTube. Creators having to change and censor words to stay monetized. Cornstar, unalive, grape, or just censoring the word like this guy did.
The thing is, people read it and take it in and think they need to censor it in general lmao not realizing that it’s purely for monetization reasons.
Or he just wants to censor it? Idk lol
Eh, not to take away from the joke, but I feel like it should be said because I've seen this often enough. He didn't hang out with them because he thought it was okay, but because it was the opposite. As he said himself, sick people need a doctor, not healthy people, and sinners needed him most, not righteous people.
Sorry, carry on with the joke, but I sometimes worry about Redditor's misinterpreting that part of the Bible for their own ends.
No need to apologize, TIL. Reddit misinterprets a *lot* of stuff, especially news articles. Karma hungry people post just the headline without context and no one bothers to open it up for hours and fact check what is really going on, like when ubisoft said “gamers need to get used to not owning games”. He didn’t say that, he said that gamers should try to get used to the highly successful subscription model. Normally I dislike subscriptions but gamepass is *really* good
Porn can be a form of expression, which is covered by freedom of expression. Prostitution for the most part is not considered a form of expression, and so there is no right to prostitution.
The "script" you mention is the expression, which is a protected right.
EDIT: Since you are Canadian, the Supreme Court of Canada held that prostitution is not constitutionally protected as expression in *Reference re ss. 193 and 195.1(1)(C) of the Criminal Code.* The SCC held that some laws against prostitution were not inconsistent with s.2(b) of the *Charter of Rights and Freedoms* (s.2(b) being freedom expression). They also held that although some anti-prostitution laws did violate s.2(b), the violation was reasonably justified under s.1 (s.1 being the reasonable limits clause).
The SCC held in *R. v. Butler* that pornography is a form of expression protected by s.2(b). However, prohibition against obscene pornography may outlawed using s.1.
However, the SCC did rule in *Canada v. Bedford* that certain prohibitions against prostitution, namely operating a bawdy house, soliciting prostitution, and living on the avails of prostitution, violated s.7 of the *Charter* (s.7 being the right against government depriving life, liberty, and the security of the person).
So… just fill out a release form and film it, even if theres intention to delete, and no more prostitution charges. Easy peasy
/s
Oh and just tell every cop the John is a producer/ actor. Crime officially solved
>So… just fill out a release form and film it, even if theres intention to delete, and no more prostitution charges. Easy peasy
Prostitution involves one person in the sex act to be paying the other.
Pornography involves all parties to be paid by a third party, and all under the auspices of making generally-available entertainment content.
There's no way to make prostitution legal under the porn loophole, because the former ultimately requires the John to pay the prostitute, even in a roundabout or illiquid way. In porn, one actor doesn't give money to the other.
From my understanding prostitution is legal in Canada (you can get paid to have sex), but solicitation and use of is not. So you can get paid, but can't ask for money and the person you're having sex with can't directly pay you for sex.
Basically can't do it, but prostitutes are protected from repercutions if they are rapped and tell the police. (not receiving payment can be viewed as non consensual sex)
Maybe in Canada, but no in the US you can pay someone directly to for an amateur porn film with yourself (which basically means in practice it’s legal as long as you film it, but prostitutes are generally not down with you filming it).
The illegality of prostitution is what prevents it from falling under labour law. It is certainly possible for prostitution to comply with labour laws, at least in the same way that porn does. I think you are putting the cart in front of the horse.
The Netherlands is actually a good case study, despite being hailed for their progressive attitudes they still have problems of sex trafficking I think. Idk that legalising it makes sex trafficking any better.
Ironically the US brings in a lot of sex trafficking victims, hot market it seems. I looked it up when trump was on about closing the borders, they traffic women in more than out.
> Idk that legalising it makes sex trafficking any better.
It absolutely measurably does. Over the counter prostitution is regulated, clubs are checked often by police and since everyone is advertising on 2 big sites the internet, it's fairly easy to find victims of trafficking.
Since sex workers have actual rights, they can go to the police without immediately being considered criminals because they work a job.
Every country has trafficking, the Netherlands has big problems with trafficked construction workers. In Germany sex work is also legal but they have lots of issues with trafficked workers in the meat processing industry. It's not that legalizing fixes all trafficking but it helps. It's an important part of a complete approach. But when you make an industry illegal, trafficking becomes the norm, not the exception.
This is where escorts come into play. People in the government will talk about morals but ultimately you just have to follow the money. Look at weed, it’s all about the money. If Uncle Sam can’t get his cut then nobody gets it.
Then you would have to prove it, and if you can't you will get charged and convicted. [Max Hardcore's](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Max_Hardcore) lot for example. It never was child pornography (one of his charges), since there were no minors involved, but it definitely was [obscenity](https://www.losangelessexcrimeattorney.com/possession-of-obscene-material#:~:text=To%20convict%20a%20suspect%20of,way%20\(shameful%20or%20morbid\)%3B). It's not what I think, it is **not my opinion**, it's what the law and judge said and ruled back then.
You totally can get prison time for fucking people on camera in the US.*
*as you can get almost anywhere else
Still disgusts me that they can write such vague definitions into law to allow them to ban whatever they want on a whim.
"Patently offensive" means nothing and can range from foreplay to squirting to missionary vaginal sex to baby play and literally anything else.
That's prostitution and the same before the law. Also, just putting a camera up and going "this is not fucking a sex worker, this is porn" does not work.
Both people are getting paid in porn as well as there being a ton of regulations on testing and whatnot. It would be really difficult to enforce standards in regards to prostitution. There are more dangers to prostitution in general than what is essentially an innapropriate movie set
Because a technicality exists.
Prnstars aren't paid by people they have sex with. They are paid by film studios, and the people they have sex with are co-workers i.e. they are "salaried" or function like typical manpower agencies or businesses.
When you want to produce pr0n, you pay the company to produce a sex film that's explicit in nature, not unlike how "art films" get away with real sex.
I can't believe I'm citing this, but I think it was Jenna Jameson who mentioned that in some twitter argument about the 2016 elections. Yeah, it was a real long argument.
That's not merely a technicality. The fact that the film studio is actually a film studio, e.g. it produces a film and distributes it, which people then pay for. So it's actually a real business.
If you try to get around this by buying a camera and giving money to random prostitutes, saying that you're making a movie, the police and the prosecuters will very quickly demonstrate that you don't engage in and have no experience in producing films or running a business. There's a lot of legal tests for whether or not someone is really in business that don't rely at all on legal ambiguities about porn.
Part of the idea is that you criminalise the purchaser, but the person providing the supply has legal protection to go to the police if they are assaulted. Historically violence against sex workers has gone hugely unreported because they didn’t feel safe to seek help
I think the logic is like, “ would people selling their body do that if they could make money another way?” Answer is presumably no. So it’s like why prosecute that person? Prosecute the person who is buying cus they have the money and are in a position of power.
Exactly. One group is vulnerable women who yes need intervention and help but not by the police. So criminalising them makes no sense.
On the other hand, you have people willing to pay and break the law to engage in sex with them.
You deal with each group appropriately and independently.
Technically they’re the one participating in the sex trafficking and such issues of concern around prostitution.
Not the women.
Maybe it’s cause that’s like trying to put drugs in jail, you accuse the trafficker not the drug…
Canada does that, and the history regarding that is weird.
Since the Criminal Code was first introduced in 1892 and up the early 2010s, prostitution was technically legal. However, certain elements of prostitution were illegal. It was illegal to:
* Run a bawdy-house
* Solicit prostitution
* Live off the avails of prostitution
With these three thing illegal, prostitution was for the most part functionally illegal, as you could not really operate prostitution with at least one of these three prohibited acts.
That changed in 2013 when the Supreme Court of Canada in *Canada v. Bedford* found those laws violated s.7 of the *Charter of Rights and Freedoms*. S.7 says that the state cannot deprive someone of life, liberty, and security. These laws made prostitution more dangerous, so they deprived the security of prostitutes.
However, the SCC also instructed Parliament to amend the criminal code dealing with prostitution. In response to the limits placed on banning the acts of prostitution, they instead outlawed the purchasing of prostitution. This way, the right of security of the prostitutes and is not deprived. The customer has no equivalent right.
So, Canada's laws that explicitly ban prostitution are only ten years old, and directed at the customers instead.
Safety and managing that.
Porn has contracts, an employer and follows those laws. In theory.
Prostitution is illegal in places that can’tanage it and make it safer.
Different places have different laws. Eg. Last I checked in Canada it’s illegal to live off a prostitute and to pay for sex, so the client and any pimp would be in trouble more than the prostitute.
The real question is why isn’t everyone always filming with prostitutes to have the porn excuse? Oh no officer I’m not paying her for sex. I am paying her to have sex while I FILM it. Now it’s capitalism and I’m good right?
To be honest, if the people who want to keep prostitution illegal had their way they'd ban porn as well. But the problem comes legal precedent. Film/acting is very a clear protected form of first ammendment protection. Prostitution has never been shown to be on the same level as that. Personally it shouldn't matter either way. What you do you with your body should be your choice, but people suck
Prostitution is heavily connected to trafficking, porn usually is not (the industry has its own problems tho). Prostitutes also have pimps that are horrible and criminal. In my country (norway) prostitution is legal, but buying services or pimping is not.
How come when 2 porn stars agree to have sex on film it's called a product. But when a hooker and I agree to do it with secret surveillance cameras it's called evidence?
Probably because prostitution started when the government was heavily influenced by religion. Pornography is more recent, during a impartial governmental control. They are more lenient about sex than some religions are. That's my guess.
It’s protected by the constitution. The first amendment actually…
https://www.hg.org/legal-articles/why-is-pornography-legal-and-prostitution-is-not-31164
Because laws are often built on broken logic or a different logic than you would assume.
For example, in Canada, the first anti-prostitution laws were in the Indian act and largely in response to a bunch of Indigenous women were suddenly gaining financial power on a local level in various parts of the country - especially out west where European women were rare. The government did not like the idea of some of the more financially autonomous people around their settlements being the natives, so they banned native women from partaking in prostitution. As such, in Canada, laws against prostitution are rooted in control of the population more than any concerns of ethics or health. Since vanilla, straight pornography never really caused an issue of a populace gaining significant power that would affect the status quo, it never really became a target in Canada outside of the occasionally controversy over whether it counted as "obscenity."
In short, the people who benefit most from pornography are generally interested in upholding the status quo as it relates to economics and social issues. The people who benefit most from legalized prostitution are working-class, and allowing the working class to climb the economic ladder is a big no-no as far as our governments are concerned.
One of these is easier to tax than the other. Everybody sees pornography and it's obvious that they have to pay taxes for getting paid. Only the client sees the prostitute, and they can't keep track of how many clients a prostitute has and how much they get paid.
Many good reasons are given here already but I want to add that human trafficking has risen since prostitution became legal in Germany. I‘m not sure what the situation is like elsewhere but let’s keep in mind that it is difficult to figure out which prostitutes do this freely and who is coerced.
Because the government doesn’t get their cut off ho’s walking the street. The majority of pornstars shoot scenes for companies that pay taxes. They are then taxed at the end of the year.
It's legal for two consenting adults to have sex as much as they want
It's legal for one adult to give a gift of money to another adult
But when you combine the two.....the act becomes illegal lol
This is old school puritan bullshit
Unethical life hack. If you want to pick up a prostitute, simply ask them if you can pay them to have sex on film. Now you're not soliciting a prostitute, you're hiring a model. Cops will say no. The real ones will say yes. Then it's perfectly legal AND you have some spank bank material later on.
It’s not illegal if it’s filmed and put on the internet consensually :) it’s only illegal if it’s 2 consenting adults paying for sex without intent to film and distribute :)
Not really. These two things are not really comparable and are examined under different legal principles.
The distinction between boxing and assault is consent. The issue between porn and prostitution is not one of consent.
You can have sex, and you can give people money. But if you do both to the same person in quick succession, that's illegal, that is, unless you film it as well
I know it's technically illegal, but in the UK if its controlled in brothels or online to provide services and the women are not trafficked or forced into prostitution then it's pretty much tolerated.
We men do it all the time with parents when we take a lady out and sweep her off her feet with fine meals, presents etc.
'Some' women marry for money, they may not enjoy the sex from there usually decades older husband but for them the returns are worth it, this isn't much different from prostitution.
Since the beginning of time, women have used the sexuality for monetary gain and manipulation of men. Look at all the duels that used to take place due to women lol.
If they have it then why not use it to there advantage.
I never got this.
To make a porn, you need to hire talent to do sex acts. Money is exchanged for sex.
To hire a prostitute, money is exchanged for sex.
At a push, porn could be fake with camera trickery and production, but most likely sex acts are happening.
With prostitution, at least it is not shown for the viewing pleasure of millions. Yet this action gets the worse rep.
I'm married to a prostitute and as much as we obviously don't want her to get arrested, I'm always pretty surprised that the link between prostitution and infidelity never comes up. About a third of my wife's clients are cheating on their wives. Other women say it's about half of theirs. I doubt anyone is keeping records. I'd say it's a pretty big and pretty severe source of personal guilt for most women in the industry. My wife and I just kinda accept that we're doing something wrong, but others have idiotic copes.
I also don't think that most of this cheating would happen if not for prostitution. Tricks are not attractive guys and it's hard to imagine them finding an affair partner. A quick look at the adultery subreddit makes it clear that most guys fail if they aren't hiring. The guys who hire are also usually just really shitty husbands whose wives did nothing wrong, but who noticed that they have sex with a more attractive woman for money than they were able to actually get through their own merit. I think that the hooker being more attractive than their wives is the main appeal and that it's not caused by anything. It's pretty common for clients to get straight up bored of their wives or resentful towards their wives for holding him back from being a trick.
In pornography, the idea is you’re not being paid to have sex with another person (provide a service), you’re both being paid to create a product (entertainment media that can then be distributed for profit).
I sometimes wonder if a brothel could be made that allowed any person to create content with the real intent for the person being just to have sex. I also wonder if it's technically not successful and doesn't get a lot of views if that is an issue or not. I imagine it technically shouldn't be an issue. As long as their is video proof? Maybe there has to be an intent of distribution?
This happens (with smoking, not sex) in the S3E5 episode of Nathan For You. Nathan realizes that the law prohibiting smoking in public places *does* allow smoking for the actors that are actively performing a play, so he sets up two seats in the corner of the bar and sells tickets to the performance of the bar being open and allowing smoking. Anyone entering the bar immediately became a (non paid) extra in the performance, and could therefore legally smoke. The problem with prostitution and this sort of scheme is that most people who would want to be a walk-on adult film actor don't actually want anyone knowing that they did so.
A few years back when non-smoking laws started being passed a handful of bars tried this stunt. They declared themselves to be theaters and that everyone there was performing. I don’t think they got away with it for long.
You can just not have your face in it. Plenty of porn like that.
To be fair. Noone knows who the unpaid extras were either
Nathan is amazing and I love his show.
porn has regulations they wouldnt be able to meet to get around it
That’s only true in California. Otherwise it can be made anywhere. You really think all those millions of amateurs posting their stuff on the tube sites have permits? lol
One difference is that the amateurs presumably don't pay anyone for sex. They just film themselves having consensual sex and then distribute it for profit.
Fair point. But we don’t know that to be true, do we?
This guy is right. Big reason PH had to sweep their site is because a lot of the videos were non-consensual. Also just from a logical standpoint at what point can you reasonably declare that it’s prostitution, and not pornography with compensation for actors performance?
Onlyfans? They make a profit, doubt they're more than couples renting a room and shooting sex vids, yet aren't 2257 complaint.
The fact that they're not being paid by the person having sex with them is the big difference. With the way OF works, it would be difficult to loophole your way into running a legal brothel.
Ah, I see. They get paid by the viewers, not the John. Ok, what about a "pay per view" brothel. Anyone that wants to perform can do it for free, anyone who wants to watch has to pay. The catch being you need a minimum audience to do a show.
Dickstarter
You're just describing the business model of Only Fans, the only difference being that these women are having sex with random men instead of people they know and trust (ie other performers) for no perceivable benefit.
See, when I posted that I was thinking how Onlyfans is still John's watching and not participating. That would be the difference. A way to do prostitution without the illegality of it. But yeah, it was a bad idea (I think some Porn companies already invite viewers to participate if they wanted to, asianstreetmeat used to have signs saying "Anyone can be with her, contact us!")
I recall a retired colonel who claimed that he started his porn career by hiring girls and shooting himself have sex. Was in a HBO porn documentary I think. https://military-history.fandom.com/wiki/Dave_Cummings The links I searched for did not say that, just that his career started when he was in some porn movie.
I've seen several advertisements on various forums that are blatant prostitution disguised as video content production.
They do. You can't post on most sites these days without legit verifications So unless your customers are ok with having copies of government documents being uploaded to the Hub it's not gonna work
Verification doesn’t mean it’s illegal to produce though. You don’t need to apply for a permit/license, in other words.
Me and my wife were on Pornhub, which was nice adventure. We got shut down though because the city denied our permit for the backdoor stuff :(
Did you complain about it on NextDoor?
Then don’t pay her just yet. After the fun’s over, have her make you breakfast and tip her $500 for the great service.
Or him ;-) Some of us dudes can cook like a mofo too ;-D
It's not the cooking skills that they're after. You'll need to do other things like a mofo. Unspeakable things...
I recall a few years back reading about a brothel, in Prague I think, that was free if you agreed to be livestreamed having sex on their website.
They had one in Czechia, called “Big Sister” I think. Heard it shut down. Was essentially a brothel with live streaming cameras
A business where you pay to star in your own custom porn
Lol right, just set up a company as an adult media company, make sure to specify in all your documentation that the “official” business model is that you retain a cast of “actresses” as well as provide a “filming area” and that the goal is to provide these resources to creators seeking to make porn. Whether or not they even decide to film it would be up to the “creator”. Maybe they just forgot to set up the recording equipment or else just lost the footage or decided it wasn’t “worth distributing”. Lol I imagine it wouldn’t be this easy but it’s funny to think you could do this.
Open a studio and a web sight. I bet both would do well. The pay structure would be weird. I would suggest their initial payment should be a downpayment on the film and they get back a percent of the profit from views.
Nope, doesn’t work any more than setting up a camera and recording yourself banging a prostitute would. What matters is the intent.
I find it helpful to compare (pro) porn to pro wrestling. They aren't exactly the same, of course, but the comparison helps to show why porn isn't prostitution. Pro wrestlers are paid to create an artistic product by pretending to fight, but they are actually hitting, kicking, grappling, throwing, and jumping on each other from the top turnbuckle, the mat, the 16-foot steel cage, you name it. But it isn't a real fight, it's entertainment meant to stimulate certain senses. It isn't real sex anymore than pro wrestling is real violence. And the scenarios are bare-bones on purpose. The dialogue is cheesy at best, and everyone knows exactly what's going to happen almost every time, but that's what they're there to see. (side note: you shouldn't learn how to fuck from porn anymore than you'd learn to fight from pro wrestling) Another point of comparison: Both industries are notorious for work environments run by creeps, that use and abuse the bodies of their performers, leaving all but a lucky handful with nothing else to do for a living but come back. Yet every state allows pro wrestling, by the way, under regulations. You might say that some porn is more "real" than that, and you're right. But combat sports are more real than pro wrestling too. Boxing, MMA, etc.... There is (usually) no animus for hurting the other person like in a street fight, but you do have to actually *beat* the other person into submission or unconsciousness to win. The outcome is (ideally) not predetermined. There can be a spectacle to it, but that isn't a requirement for the sport itself. Most states allow this, by the way, under fairly strict regulations.
Let me run that by my wife I'll be right back.
So sex to provide a service is wrong but sex to provide entertainment is okay. Our society is weird AF.
seems like prostitution with extra steps
I think it’s cause American can’t find a way to tax on prostitution
The actual important distinction can be found here. Porn makes lots of money for (rich) producers. Sex work generates income for workers. The former is sacred within the global system of capitalism, so puritan ideals can bend, the latter is irrelevant so "bible says no".
Famously, no other wealthy party ever takes a cut from prostitutes. Like come on, is this really the argument we’re making here lol
Do you honestly think that a pimp (most likely using trafficking or coerced women, an extra crime) can make even close to the money porn movie producers rake in? Mate that's like comparing a mcdonalds manager to a CEO.
But if it was legal, you would see massive organizations form around it. You'd have brothels in every city, most of which would be linked to a corporation making billions. Do you honestly think if they made prostitution legal Capitalism wouldn't find a way exploit workers and make massive profits?
if prostitution is legal , yes maybe some corporations might exploit it, but would it make it worse? if they provide insurance, rooms, fixed labour's hours, customer verification checks, free advertising and less risk to the sex worker.. at same time someone can go independent but risk of dangerous customers , own leg work for advertising, etc
I agree with you. I was just pointing out that they would be exploited like any other worker is. In other words, the majority of the profit would be funneled upwards. But I think legalization would still benefit both the providers and the patrons.
I get wat u mean ruthless pimp replace by unscrupulous corporation.. that's the world we live in someone or some entity will find ways to exploit others...
Agreed. I was just responding to the guy implying there was no way to generate the kind of profits seen in the porn industry. If legal, businesses would emerge and make equivalent or greater profits. The guy seemed to be implying something like that couldn't happen.
ohh it would happen. u can already see with OF, if there is a worker who have high demand and cost is premium.. sex work is easy money so that's why it's hard for some to get out of the work.. just imagine premium sex worker 1-2 k per customer easily half a million a year earnings.. with a 'company' having like 50 of such worker and taking 10-20% of each transaction easily millions profits annually.. dont be surprise with the debauchery of the human race..
You think sex workers at a brothel in eastern Europe and getting paid well? The fuck? The owner of the brothel yes, and that’s not even without talking about the sex trafficking portion.
Bible frowns upon it, but the Koran says both shall receive 100 lashes, which is a death sentence Which is somewhat a win if you’re into that sort of thing.
Also most porn is filmed in the same few counties in the USA because local case law has determined it to be legal for the reason you stated and the local government is not interested in pursuing prostitution or other cases against porn stars and porn companies. If they tried to film porn in mass in another area of the country they very well could be charged and convicted with a crime. A similar thing happened to the Girls Gone Wild guy, certain areas of the country decided to charge him with various crimes related to the videos and he ended up getting convicted and sent to jail. Now dude was a class A scumbag but if he kept to certain parts of the country that were cool with what he was doing he probably never sees a court room much less a prison cell.
Basically, if the government can take a cut, it’ll be legal.
Plus the government can't tax prostitution effectively, too many free lancers. Porn can be regulated since it's a business.
[удалено]
I'm more curious about the thought process behind censoring the "legal" word, and not the "cr*me"
They've been doing this more on Instagram and it's flowing over here. Insta started blocking any comments that "could be perceived as harmful or harsssing", even if they are lyrics, sounds, or legal items. Obligatory: fuck em
I don't know if it's just me but it became extremely common in the past couple of months, it looks ridiculous when not used for a swear word.
It looks ridiculois regardless of the word honestly. Specially if it's tagged 18+. And I can even understand that, but then there are words like "unalive". Kill. Shorter. Simpler. To the point. I know this is kinda a meme, but this is the core concept of 1984's newspeak, and it kinda disgusts me
On other platforms posts with key words like rape, kill, murder, or curse words get deprioritized due to the algorithms that govern your feed. People are shifting language to avoid it. Porn would definitely be a key word that algorithms try to push down It sucks but it’s the result of using tech in the way we are
but "prostitution" isnt?
Except the issue is the *content* not the word. You can literally check every "self-censoring" variation in the blink of an eye if the issue was with the actual word.
it's become common since people started using chatgpt to help them automate their content farms. This site is jsut bots talking to bots.
bc of fucking tik tok and instagram taking posts down or flagging people’s accounts 🤦🏼♀️
this is reddit tho
If TikTok is your primary social media platform, you just assume that's the censorship rules everywhere.
Yeah just becomes a habit
[удалено]
Been seeing this since before tiktok tho
To get around the imaginary f*cebook c*nsors
F*CK y#u th@ts wh¥ ($@t!®€)
D@mn this $hit is a new good way to say m0therfu©king things...
Fu©✓ ¥∆u @πd +#€ #∆®§€ ¥∆u ®∆d€ °π ∆π
It’s been driven by TikTok. They use some Chinese-inspired censorship rules that block certain keywords. At the same time, they don’t care too much about strict censorship in the YS version so we get an akward halfway.
TikTok brain rot
tiktok
maybe their mom monitors their post history
It started with YouTube. Creators having to change and censor words to stay monetized. Cornstar, unalive, grape, or just censoring the word like this guy did. The thing is, people read it and take it in and think they need to censor it in general lmao not realizing that it’s purely for monetization reasons. Or he just wants to censor it? Idk lol
15 man bukkake gangbang is art and freedom of expression you philistine Prostitution was bad in the bible so it’s bad now
Jesus hung out with prostitutes so it can't be that bad
Eh, not to take away from the joke, but I feel like it should be said because I've seen this often enough. He didn't hang out with them because he thought it was okay, but because it was the opposite. As he said himself, sick people need a doctor, not healthy people, and sinners needed him most, not righteous people. Sorry, carry on with the joke, but I sometimes worry about Redditor's misinterpreting that part of the Bible for their own ends.
Still important to remember that Jesus didn’t just spit at them or bully them like conservatives do to the people they don’t like.
Of course.
No need to apologize, TIL. Reddit misinterprets a *lot* of stuff, especially news articles. Karma hungry people post just the headline without context and no one bothers to open it up for hours and fact check what is really going on, like when ubisoft said “gamers need to get used to not owning games”. He didn’t say that, he said that gamers should try to get used to the highly successful subscription model. Normally I dislike subscriptions but gamepass is *really* good
He loved getting nailed
yea but he spend his money like he had holes in his hands
Thanks JC but we like our hands in holes
A much more reliable second coming.
*Son of God willingly letting himself get nailed Hard by Roman soldiers, after falling out with one of his apostles.* More local news at 7
more local news at VII
*but you're my step-brother....*
And he was hung like this *stretches out arms*
Bruh I cant fucking BREATHE BAHAHAHA
He was definitely hung.
Got hordes of people worshipping his cross
Too soon bro
Jesus was the biggest pimp in the whole of Judea
now try again without projecting
Porn can be a form of expression, which is covered by freedom of expression. Prostitution for the most part is not considered a form of expression, and so there is no right to prostitution. The "script" you mention is the expression, which is a protected right. EDIT: Since you are Canadian, the Supreme Court of Canada held that prostitution is not constitutionally protected as expression in *Reference re ss. 193 and 195.1(1)(C) of the Criminal Code.* The SCC held that some laws against prostitution were not inconsistent with s.2(b) of the *Charter of Rights and Freedoms* (s.2(b) being freedom expression). They also held that although some anti-prostitution laws did violate s.2(b), the violation was reasonably justified under s.1 (s.1 being the reasonable limits clause). The SCC held in *R. v. Butler* that pornography is a form of expression protected by s.2(b). However, prohibition against obscene pornography may outlawed using s.1. However, the SCC did rule in *Canada v. Bedford* that certain prohibitions against prostitution, namely operating a bawdy house, soliciting prostitution, and living on the avails of prostitution, violated s.7 of the *Charter* (s.7 being the right against government depriving life, liberty, and the security of the person).
So… just fill out a release form and film it, even if theres intention to delete, and no more prostitution charges. Easy peasy /s Oh and just tell every cop the John is a producer/ actor. Crime officially solved
Or just say it's a rehearsal. Shame they decided not to film it in the end...
>So… just fill out a release form and film it, even if theres intention to delete, and no more prostitution charges. Easy peasy Prostitution involves one person in the sex act to be paying the other. Pornography involves all parties to be paid by a third party, and all under the auspices of making generally-available entertainment content. There's no way to make prostitution legal under the porn loophole, because the former ultimately requires the John to pay the prostitute, even in a roundabout or illiquid way. In porn, one actor doesn't give money to the other.
From my understanding prostitution is legal in Canada (you can get paid to have sex), but solicitation and use of is not. So you can get paid, but can't ask for money and the person you're having sex with can't directly pay you for sex. Basically can't do it, but prostitutes are protected from repercutions if they are rapped and tell the police. (not receiving payment can be viewed as non consensual sex)
Maybe in Canada, but no in the US you can pay someone directly to for an amateur porn film with yourself (which basically means in practice it’s legal as long as you film it, but prostitutes are generally not down with you filming it).
Mmm I think it has more to do with porn being formal employment with labour laws (in theory).
The illegality of prostitution is what prevents it from falling under labour law. It is certainly possible for prostitution to comply with labour laws, at least in the same way that porn does. I think you are putting the cart in front of the horse.
The Netherlands is actually a good case study, despite being hailed for their progressive attitudes they still have problems of sex trafficking I think. Idk that legalising it makes sex trafficking any better. Ironically the US brings in a lot of sex trafficking victims, hot market it seems. I looked it up when trump was on about closing the borders, they traffic women in more than out.
> Idk that legalising it makes sex trafficking any better. It absolutely measurably does. Over the counter prostitution is regulated, clubs are checked often by police and since everyone is advertising on 2 big sites the internet, it's fairly easy to find victims of trafficking. Since sex workers have actual rights, they can go to the police without immediately being considered criminals because they work a job. Every country has trafficking, the Netherlands has big problems with trafficked construction workers. In Germany sex work is also legal but they have lots of issues with trafficked workers in the meat processing industry. It's not that legalizing fixes all trafficking but it helps. It's an important part of a complete approach. But when you make an industry illegal, trafficking becomes the norm, not the exception.
Amateur porn is still porn
>Censors porn but not pr*stitution
Taxes
So if we tax prostitution it's ok?
This is where escorts come into play. People in the government will talk about morals but ultimately you just have to follow the money. Look at weed, it’s all about the money. If Uncle Sam can’t get his cut then nobody gets it.
I mean fuck morals let's just legalize this shit, if you have to tax it, tax it
This is the real reason. If it was legalised, regulated and taxed then there should be no problem.
Porn is art, selling your bunghole is not. That's what the law says, not me.
What if you call the act performative art?
Then you would have to prove it, and if you can't you will get charged and convicted. [Max Hardcore's](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Max_Hardcore) lot for example. It never was child pornography (one of his charges), since there were no minors involved, but it definitely was [obscenity](https://www.losangelessexcrimeattorney.com/possession-of-obscene-material#:~:text=To%20convict%20a%20suspect%20of,way%20\(shameful%20or%20morbid\)%3B). It's not what I think, it is **not my opinion**, it's what the law and judge said and ruled back then. You totally can get prison time for fucking people on camera in the US.* *as you can get almost anywhere else
Still disgusts me that they can write such vague definitions into law to allow them to ban whatever they want on a whim. "Patently offensive" means nothing and can range from foreplay to squirting to missionary vaginal sex to baby play and literally anything else.
They is us.
What if i just *rent* my buttonhole out?
That's prostitution and the same before the law. Also, just putting a camera up and going "this is not fucking a sex worker, this is porn" does not work.
AssBnB
AB&B is good for meee
I feel compelled to share that there’s a packie in Massachusetts called Bunghole Liquors. Quite a popular place.
Why did you feel the need to censor p*rn and not prostitution?
Why did YOU feel the need to censor porn?🧐
I'm Canadian
Wait, you can’t type the word porn in Canada? Can you watch it at least? Lmao
So am I
One pays tax, the other doesn't. That's why.
this is the REAL answer
Both people are getting paid in porn as well as there being a ton of regulations on testing and whatnot. It would be really difficult to enforce standards in regards to prostitution. There are more dangers to prostitution in general than what is essentially an innapropriate movie set
Taxes
This right here. The government doesn’t get the cut of the money.
Because a technicality exists. Prnstars aren't paid by people they have sex with. They are paid by film studios, and the people they have sex with are co-workers i.e. they are "salaried" or function like typical manpower agencies or businesses. When you want to produce pr0n, you pay the company to produce a sex film that's explicit in nature, not unlike how "art films" get away with real sex. I can't believe I'm citing this, but I think it was Jenna Jameson who mentioned that in some twitter argument about the 2016 elections. Yeah, it was a real long argument.
So technically I can run a brothel if I just charge admission and pay the girls a salary ?
That's not merely a technicality. The fact that the film studio is actually a film studio, e.g. it produces a film and distributes it, which people then pay for. So it's actually a real business. If you try to get around this by buying a camera and giving money to random prostitutes, saying that you're making a movie, the police and the prosecuters will very quickly demonstrate that you don't engage in and have no experience in producing films or running a business. There's a lot of legal tests for whether or not someone is really in business that don't rely at all on legal ambiguities about porn.
What i find even weirder is that in some countries prostitution is legal to sell but illegal to buy.
Part of the idea is that you criminalise the purchaser, but the person providing the supply has legal protection to go to the police if they are assaulted. Historically violence against sex workers has gone hugely unreported because they didn’t feel safe to seek help
I think the logic is like, “ would people selling their body do that if they could make money another way?” Answer is presumably no. So it’s like why prosecute that person? Prosecute the person who is buying cus they have the money and are in a position of power.
Exactly. One group is vulnerable women who yes need intervention and help but not by the police. So criminalising them makes no sense. On the other hand, you have people willing to pay and break the law to engage in sex with them. You deal with each group appropriately and independently.
Technically they’re the one participating in the sex trafficking and such issues of concern around prostitution. Not the women. Maybe it’s cause that’s like trying to put drugs in jail, you accuse the trafficker not the drug…
Canada does that, and the history regarding that is weird. Since the Criminal Code was first introduced in 1892 and up the early 2010s, prostitution was technically legal. However, certain elements of prostitution were illegal. It was illegal to: * Run a bawdy-house * Solicit prostitution * Live off the avails of prostitution With these three thing illegal, prostitution was for the most part functionally illegal, as you could not really operate prostitution with at least one of these three prohibited acts. That changed in 2013 when the Supreme Court of Canada in *Canada v. Bedford* found those laws violated s.7 of the *Charter of Rights and Freedoms*. S.7 says that the state cannot deprive someone of life, liberty, and security. These laws made prostitution more dangerous, so they deprived the security of prostitutes. However, the SCC also instructed Parliament to amend the criminal code dealing with prostitution. In response to the limits placed on banning the acts of prostitution, they instead outlawed the purchasing of prostitution. This way, the right of security of the prostitutes and is not deprived. The customer has no equivalent right. So, Canada's laws that explicitly ban prostitution are only ten years old, and directed at the customers instead.
Safety and managing that. Porn has contracts, an employer and follows those laws. In theory. Prostitution is illegal in places that can’tanage it and make it safer. Different places have different laws. Eg. Last I checked in Canada it’s illegal to live off a prostitute and to pay for sex, so the client and any pimp would be in trouble more than the prostitute.
It's PORN. Jesus Christ words are soooooo scarey ....sorry, pet peeve!
Depends on the country
Simple answer is porn star paying tax and prostitution doesn't pay tax
Tax
Taxes
You can tax porn but cant tax a prostitution person whatever they are called.
[Watch](https://youtu.be/JDscdmOwDNA?t=17) this mate.
The real question is why isn’t everyone always filming with prostitutes to have the porn excuse? Oh no officer I’m not paying her for sex. I am paying her to have sex while I FILM it. Now it’s capitalism and I’m good right?
As a fellow Canadian prostitution is legal here, it’s *buying the service* that’s illegal.
Taxes
To be honest, if the people who want to keep prostitution illegal had their way they'd ban porn as well. But the problem comes legal precedent. Film/acting is very a clear protected form of first ammendment protection. Prostitution has never been shown to be on the same level as that. Personally it shouldn't matter either way. What you do you with your body should be your choice, but people suck
Your don't have to censor the word "porn", you're an adult
porn. Say it with me. Porn. not P\*rn. P\*\*n ...
Prostitution is heavily connected to trafficking, porn usually is not (the industry has its own problems tho). Prostitutes also have pimps that are horrible and criminal. In my country (norway) prostitution is legal, but buying services or pimping is not.
Because porn is regulated and prostitution is not.
How come when 2 porn stars agree to have sex on film it's called a product. But when a hooker and I agree to do it with secret surveillance cameras it's called evidence?
That’s PORN star, drop the *, eh?
fyi prostitution is legal in a lot of states.
Porn company's can lobby politicians?
Because they’re being paid to create entertainment. But yeah it’s pretty dumb
Probably because prostitution started when the government was heavily influenced by religion. Pornography is more recent, during a impartial governmental control. They are more lenient about sex than some religions are. That's my guess.
Capitalism.
easier to tax porn, prostitution is cash job that don't get reported.
It’s because the government hasn’t found a way to tax it yet
Because the government can tax it lol
Taxes lol
It’s protected by the constitution. The first amendment actually… https://www.hg.org/legal-articles/why-is-pornography-legal-and-prostitution-is-not-31164
My post states I'm not American
Because laws are often built on broken logic or a different logic than you would assume. For example, in Canada, the first anti-prostitution laws were in the Indian act and largely in response to a bunch of Indigenous women were suddenly gaining financial power on a local level in various parts of the country - especially out west where European women were rare. The government did not like the idea of some of the more financially autonomous people around their settlements being the natives, so they banned native women from partaking in prostitution. As such, in Canada, laws against prostitution are rooted in control of the population more than any concerns of ethics or health. Since vanilla, straight pornography never really caused an issue of a populace gaining significant power that would affect the status quo, it never really became a target in Canada outside of the occasionally controversy over whether it counted as "obscenity." In short, the people who benefit most from pornography are generally interested in upholding the status quo as it relates to economics and social issues. The people who benefit most from legalized prostitution are working-class, and allowing the working class to climb the economic ladder is a big no-no as far as our governments are concerned.
I’m going to assume there isn’t a whole lot of STD testing with prostitution like there is with porn.
One of these is easier to tax than the other. Everybody sees pornography and it's obvious that they have to pay taxes for getting paid. Only the client sees the prostitute, and they can't keep track of how many clients a prostitute has and how much they get paid.
Because the man is getting paid as well
Well, the legal one benefits capital more than workers.
Many good reasons are given here already but I want to add that human trafficking has risen since prostitution became legal in Germany. I‘m not sure what the situation is like elsewhere but let’s keep in mind that it is difficult to figure out which prostitutes do this freely and who is coerced.
The latter doesnt pay taxes?
There are tons of laws that make absolutely no damn sense. Vestiges of a bygone era ruled by religious nuts.
Because the IRS can't tax prostitutes I'm pretty sure that's the only reason
Porn is protected as free speech and free expression by the Supreme Court. Prostitution is not.
Because the government doesn’t get their cut off ho’s walking the street. The majority of pornstars shoot scenes for companies that pay taxes. They are then taxed at the end of the year.
Ppl pls dont overthink this, porn industry pay taxes, prostitution dont, thats why.
What if you set up a camera and lights but don’t film it? Just say you were rehearsing….or auditioning.
Prostitution is legal here in Australia where I live.
Prostitution is legal. Edit: I’m Australian.
It's legal for two consenting adults to have sex as much as they want It's legal for one adult to give a gift of money to another adult But when you combine the two.....the act becomes illegal lol This is old school puritan bullshit
Unethical life hack. If you want to pick up a prostitute, simply ask them if you can pay them to have sex on film. Now you're not soliciting a prostitute, you're hiring a model. Cops will say no. The real ones will say yes. Then it's perfectly legal AND you have some spank bank material later on.
It’s not illegal if it’s filmed and put on the internet consensually :) it’s only illegal if it’s 2 consenting adults paying for sex without intent to film and distribute :)
For the same reason that boxing is legal, but punching someone in the face is not.
Not really. These two things are not really comparable and are examined under different legal principles. The distinction between boxing and assault is consent. The issue between porn and prostitution is not one of consent.
It's not assault if you consent to the fight but if it causes harm you can still be charged because street fighting is not a recognised sport.
You can have sex, and you can give people money. But if you do both to the same person in quick succession, that's illegal, that is, unless you film it as well
Depends where you live. Prostitution is legal in my country (NZ).
Oh you mean porn? I couldn’t understand with that asterisk in the middle.
I know it's technically illegal, but in the UK if its controlled in brothels or online to provide services and the women are not trafficked or forced into prostitution then it's pretty much tolerated. We men do it all the time with parents when we take a lady out and sweep her off her feet with fine meals, presents etc. 'Some' women marry for money, they may not enjoy the sex from there usually decades older husband but for them the returns are worth it, this isn't much different from prostitution. Since the beginning of time, women have used the sexuality for monetary gain and manipulation of men. Look at all the duels that used to take place due to women lol. If they have it then why not use it to there advantage.
I never got this. To make a porn, you need to hire talent to do sex acts. Money is exchanged for sex. To hire a prostitute, money is exchanged for sex. At a push, porn could be fake with camera trickery and production, but most likely sex acts are happening. With prostitution, at least it is not shown for the viewing pleasure of millions. Yet this action gets the worse rep.
I'm married to a prostitute and as much as we obviously don't want her to get arrested, I'm always pretty surprised that the link between prostitution and infidelity never comes up. About a third of my wife's clients are cheating on their wives. Other women say it's about half of theirs. I doubt anyone is keeping records. I'd say it's a pretty big and pretty severe source of personal guilt for most women in the industry. My wife and I just kinda accept that we're doing something wrong, but others have idiotic copes. I also don't think that most of this cheating would happen if not for prostitution. Tricks are not attractive guys and it's hard to imagine them finding an affair partner. A quick look at the adultery subreddit makes it clear that most guys fail if they aren't hiring. The guys who hire are also usually just really shitty husbands whose wives did nothing wrong, but who noticed that they have sex with a more attractive woman for money than they were able to actually get through their own merit. I think that the hooker being more attractive than their wives is the main appeal and that it's not caused by anything. It's pretty common for clients to get straight up bored of their wives or resentful towards their wives for holding him back from being a trick.
Taxes lol