Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Entertainment/2014 December 7

= December 7 =

Porn films and prostitution
Can someone explain to me why actors in adult porn film (who are paid money to have sex) do not run afoul of prostitution laws (in the USA)? Thank you. 2602:252:D13:6D70:D9F4:A874:9EE3:65BF (talk) 17:00, 7 December 2014 (UTC)


 * The answer is "because the laws do not treat it that way". Laws are created by people for various reasons, and they didn't think to ask you about your own unique perspective on what is, and is not, consistent among various laws.  The issues surrounding sex and the law are complex; if you want to become more familiar with what Wikipedia has to say on the subject, you could read Pornography, and Prostitution.  The best article is probably Sex worker which covers a wide variety of occupations in the sex industry, and covers the various laws regulating them.  Also, it is helpful to remember that "the law" is not as simple as "a list of things you can and cannot do".  Laws are subtle things, and there's a wide variety of ways that laws can be written, enforced, prosecuted, etc.  Defining what "prostitution" is, who gets "punished" for the crime, etc etc is not as simple as "people who have sex and exchange money go to jail".  It's FAR more complex than that, as all laws are.  Read the above articles, and do some Google searches and familiarize yourself with the complexity of the issue.  -- Jayron  32  18:16, 7 December 2014 (UTC)


 * This question has come up at least twice before, see here and here. Also The Straight Dope covers it here. --Viennese Waltz 19:29, 7 December 2014 (UTC)


 * From the cynic's POV, the government considers all financial activity to be a sin, unless they get a cut. It's quite difficult to ensure that they will get a cut from prostitution, since there may only be two parties involved, and if they don't tell the tax man, nobody will know.  Porn flicks, on the other hand, involve hundreds or thousands of people, including the distribution chains, so it would be hard to hide that from the taxman.  Therefore, they make that legal, and take their cut. StuRat (talk) 19:56, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

OK. Thanks. Let me add to my original question, then. Let's say that we have a situation of a "real" prostitute and a "real" customer (not a porn film production). Can't the parties just get a cell phone and take some pictures and/or videos while they have sex, and call this "porn" as opposed to a prostitution/sexual tryst? Wouldn't that "shield" all prostitutes (and their customers) from ever getting charged with a crime? 2602:252:D13:6D70:8CCD:4766:E3A7:FE93 (talk) 00:42, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Like Jayron says, sex is complicated. Laws are complicated. Combining complicated issues is complicated. Ten people could try it your way and wind up with ten results, depending on their particular complicated combination of police, witnesses, lawyers, judges, juries, reporters, PR people and dumb luck. If you're a teenager, recording anything might get you out of the john frying pan, but into the kiddie porn fire. It's a fine line, on top of another fine line, and why we really can't give legal advice.
 * On a general level, keeping anything on your phone makes it far more likely to be found (by various people) than if it wasn't. InedibleHulk (talk) 01:14, 8 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Whenever you think of a trick like this, remember that judges are humans and not robots. They will apply common sense to situation and usually take a pretty dim view of things that are obviously simple dodges. 75.69.10.209 (talk) 01:41, 8 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Yes, judges are humans and not robots. But, that does not necessarily matter.  Oftentimes, their hands are tied.  They must adhere to the "letter of the law" (whether they want to or not), despite their being human and non-robots.   2602:252:D13:6D70:9862:BE5A:30A:900C (talk) 19:41, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Not nearly so much as people like to imagine. Setting up your phone in a hotel room and vaguely mentioning that you're "making porn", will not get you treated the same as a professional porn producer with a real intent to publish. The judge will laugh at you if you try that dodge. 75.69.10.209 (talk) 06:05, 9 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Not sure I agree with that. The judge may want to laugh, but perhaps the law won't allow him to act in the way he'd like.  It all depends on what the definition of "making porn" is.  Porn does not necessarily have to have widespread distribution.  I can see that a case can be made that simply taking one photo or taking one video amounts to "making porn".  I bet that if some random individual took one single sexualized photograph of a child, that single photo would amount to "making porn" (child porn) (even if he was just keeping it for himself and not intending to distribute the photo).  So, the judge would have a hard time defining what is and what is not covered under the umbrella "making porn".    2602:252:D13:6D70:E495:3612:7A98:C932 (talk) 07:42, 9 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Further to the answers above: In some jurisdictions, paying people to have sex in pornographic films has been held to be prostitution or pandering, while in others it has not.  For example, the California Supreme Court has held that there is no prostitution or pandering.  People v. Freeman, 46 Cal.3d 419, 758 P.2d 1128 (1988).  However, a lower New York court has held that the hiring of actors and actresses for the purpose of engaging in filmed sexual conduct constitutes prostitution.  People v. Kovner, 96 Misc. 2d 414, 409 N.Y.S.2d 349 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 1978).  As one might expect with this state of affairs, commercial pornography now is produced in California but not in New York.
 * As for getting around the prostitution laws by making pornography: First, it's far from clear that this would work, unless the resulting film were actually edited and released to the public, which would be an expensive proposition.  In addition, most people who hire prostitutes are eager to keep that fact secret, not to make a permanent photographic record of the event.  John M Baker (talk) 02:08, 8 December 2014 (UTC)


 * That's sort of my point. They don't want to get arrested and have their name in the paper and on public display through the court process.  If a cop tries to arrest them, they simply show the cop the cell phone photo/video.  And the cop says, "Oh, OK, this is pornography, not prostitution.  So, you guys are all clear.  I won't arrest you after all."  It would basically be a "get out of jail free card".   Thus, the prostitute and the customer have kept the fact much more secret than had they been arrested.     2602:252:D13:6D70:9862:BE5A:30A:900C (talk) 19:44, 8 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Also, I doubt very much that the film has to be edited and released to the public. I doubt that that is a "requirement" to label something as "legitimate" porn.  I am sure that there are many legitimate porn movies that get made and, for whatever reason, never make it to release.  (Just like any normal non-porn movie.)    2602:252:D13:6D70:9862:BE5A:30A:900C (talk) 19:47, 8 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Your point really underestimates the practical difficulties of using a supposed pornography exception to the crime of prostitution. First of all, a police officer would not simply accept the pornography defense, especially if the pornographic film were merely recorded on a cellphone.  It would be a matter for a judge to decide, which would mean that a court record would be created.  And, on the facts you posit, the judge would probably not accept the defense either, on the ground that it is not bona fide pornography.  Second, the parties probably have strong reasons not to want a photographic record to be created.  For example, suppose that the movie were found by the customer's wife or girlfriend, or by the prostitute's parents?  This might create more real-life problems for them than a criminal conviction would.  Third, prostitution stings usually target the prostitute (the offense is understood to be completed when the prostitute accepts money to perform sexual acts).  However, your scenario would require the customer to go to extra trouble to go through the motions of making a pornographic movie; why would he do that?  John M Baker (talk) 00:29, 10 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Yes, clearly there are practical problems. I was basically suggesting this:  A prostitute and a customer engage in their (illegal) sexual tryst.  Before it starts (or while it is transpiring), they can take one or two quick photos or videos.  In fact, the people in the photos or videos do not need to be identifiable.  Let's say that the photos or videos only capture their bodies and not their faces (or such).  After that "task" is done, they can get on with their sexual tryst.  And if a cop tries to accuse them of prostitution, they can fall back on their "get out of jail free card" (the pornography defense).  Now, by the way, I don't think that the word "pornography" necessarily means professional films that are distributed in the way that we would normally think.  There are a lot of sexual web sites where "regular" people (amateurs) post their sexual photos and videos.  (They are not professional porn actors making a professional porn film.)  So, the word "pornography" can apply to amateur porn as well, I would guess.  So the people caught in the prostitution crime can (and, actually, are) creating amateur porn.  Which they can choose to post on line or not.  So, I would think that this "amateur level" of porn is still pornography.  And I think an argument can be made that it is "real" pornography (just like a professional porn film with professional porn actors).  And it could be a viable defense to a prostitution charge.  And, by the way, I am sure that at the beginning of the sexual tryst, the parties can say "I am not paying you for sexual acts; I am paying you to perform sexual acts on film" or something to that effect.  In fact, they can say this on film as "proof" that this is legal porn and not an illegal prostitution tryst.  Yes, of course, this is all a sham.  That's the whole point of going through this charade.  But, by the letter of the law, I still think it should work.  Maybe the very first time that it is challenged, some court can create the precedent that "yes, this counts as porn and is not illegal under the prostitution laws".  After that court decision (precedent), all future illegal sexual prostitution trysts would be "safe" to engage in (if these precautions were followed). 2602:252:D13:6D70:9C1A:FE01:F6AF:13E8 (talk) 15:00, 11 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Your scenario gives a huge amount of weight to an essentially irrelevant act, which is the actual sex. Police in the United States have no real interest in arresting consenting adults having sex in private, even if money changes hands.  When they arrest a prostitute, the illegal act has been consummated once the prostitute has accepted money to have sex; they don't wait for the sex itself to occur.  When they arrest a customer, it's generally for solicitation of prostitution, and the illegal act has been consummated once the would-be customer has solicited someone to have sex with him for money.  (Customers are almost always male, but prostitutes can be either male or female.)  By the time actual sex begins, if the prostitute and customer haven't been arrested, they won't be.


 * I suppose you could revise your scenario and ask if the prostitute or customer could instead solicit to make a pornographic movie. As far as the prostitute is concerned, this would probably prevent him or her from getting any business, so it's a nonstarter.  I don't know if it would work for the customer, but my guess is it would not.  The police would probably arrest the customer anyway, on the theory that it's part of their mandate to clean up the streets, and the judge would probably rule that it was in reality a solicitation of paid sex and the customer was not a bona fide filmmaker.  But, hey, try it and see!  Let us know what you find.  Incidentally, I understand that there is a genre of pornography in which real-life pornographers approach random women on the street and pay them to have sex on film, but that these encounters are faked and the actresses have already agreed to participate.  John M Baker (talk) 16:05, 11 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Yes, you are correct. I agree that it is the monetary exchange, not the sex, at which point the crime is committed.  (Perhaps you misread or misunderstood my post.)  And, yes, the scenario would change to the initial act being "hey, can I pay you money to have sex on film for a porno movie that I am making?" versus simply "hey, can I pay you money just to have sex?".   2602:252:D13:6D70:2078:B4FB:B208:EE94 (talk) 22:16, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

The secondary issue is one of First Amendment free speech rights, at least in the US. People do have a right to make a film without censorship by the US government (the MPAA is a private organization) and determining where the line is between say softcore pornography and general adult-level entertainment is not that easy. The US commerce clause regulations against economic liberty have much lower standards of reviews than those that relate to a first amendment grounds and thus, barring people from particular conduct such as "Don't pay someone to have sex" is more likely to pass the rational basis review than "Don't pay someone to be filmed having sex" would passing strict scrutiny (fair warning, Constitutional law was not my best subject so contact a knowledgeable lawyer and not any lawyer). -- Ricky81682 (talk) 12:10, 8 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Here is a comic strip about this very topic: Dinosaur Comics.  2602:252:D13:6D70:C924:1C9D:6B8C:1764 (talk) 15:36, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

Porn films and auditions
Does anyone have any idea as to how actors in adult porn films audition to get the roles? Thank you. 2602:252:D13:6D70:D9F4:A874:9EE3:65BF (talk) 17:00, 7 December 2014 (UTC)


 * I suppose they could bring in a "portfolio" of pics or films of them having sex, if they haven't done a porno before. However, low budget porn flicks probably will take anyone reasonably attractive who claims they will do what is asked.  If they don't, then they will be replaced and will not be paid, so it's no huge risk, maybe an hour's time paid to the crew. StuRat (talk) 19:49, 7 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Surprisingly, I actually have knowledge of this. Typically, if you're a first-timer, you'll send in an application to whichever porn studio seems to be a fit for you (most porn sites, especially gay male porn sites, have 'want to be a model?' as a prominent link on their pages). This application will usually include photos, full body, clothed and nude. For men it'll include flaccid and erect shots. If they like the look of you, you'll be brought in to do a screen test. Sometimes on your own, sometimes with an experienced performer. For female performers, basically all you have to do is be hot (for whatever value of hot is applicable to that studio) and able to fake convincingly for camera. Male performers obviously have another, um, bar to clear.


 * StuRat, it's really rare to go to a full shoot without having done a screen test first. In California (where the majority of the Western world's porn is produced), everyone working on the shoot is unionized just the same as all the TV and non-porn-movie crews are. They're cheaper, yes, but there are still going to be minimum calls and such, and with porn being on a tiny shoestring at the best of times the last thing you want to do is waste an hour of your crew's time. More often what happens is having to perform a scene in the studio's offices (it's about as literal a casting couch as you can get) with someone holding a camera and the director directing. If you're a guy and you can't make things, uh, happen then you're not getting called back. Women just have to fake convincingly enough to sell a video. Ipsissima Verba (talk) 20:42, 7 December 2014 (UTC)


 * So the audition/"screen test" involves the actor literally having sex with someone while being filmed? 2602:252:D13:6D70:D9F4:A874:9EE3:65BF (talk)  — Preceding undated comment added 20:45, 7 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Depends on what they're being hired for. A man auditioning for hetero porn, yeah most likely that's what's going to happen. The director needs to know that the guy can get it up under pressure with totally uninterested people watching, after all. For male or female performers doing solo perfomances, often just masturbating to direction. For women it'll depend. For specialist porn, it'll really depend on the specific acts being requested. Probably the best way to think about it is like any other film performance: the director/producer/studio needs to know that you can deliver what they need delivered when the camera is rolling. Ipsissima Verba (talk) 23:15, 7 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Some studios specialize in a casting genre. Newbs (real or imagined) go through the photos and screen test, ostensibly to get a part in a movie featuring an actual location or stars or plot, then the "audition" itself goes on sale. Turns out a significant portion of porn fans don't need bells and whistles, or the rest of the cameraman's body. See Czech Casting (safe for work if you work in porn). InedibleHulk (talk) 23:28, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Can I just say that that has to be the most awesome "Safe for work" disclaimer I have ever seen? Well played, Hulk, well played. - EronTalk 17:51, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
 * There's a lot of porn purporting to be "casting auditions" for new stars. I wonder if they're scripted performances and the actual casting occurs earlier. If so, it'd be interesting to see the difference between the real porn auditions, and the porn auditions porn. 75.69.10.209 (talk) 23:57, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
 * From a friend of mine who has done gay 'casting' videos: they are usually just as scripted as any other porn. I mean, again, you need to know that the guy in question can actually deliver before you start paying for everything. Real porn auditions are pretty boring: "do this, now do this. Do this." Same as filming porn--it's a lot less exciting than it sounds. Ipsissima Verba (talk) 00:12, 8 December 2014 (UTC)


 * It brings a whole new meaning to the expression "rise to the occasion". Clarityfiend (talk) 09:17, 9 December 2014 (UTC)


 * A very small few (usually the "other" person in a celebrity tape) got famous through full-on amateur, where auditioning consists of (maybe) asking your partner(s) if they mind the camera. Even then, there are 6 Reasons Homemade Porn is a Worse Idea Than You Think. InedibleHulk (talk) 00:27, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

It's Kind of a Funny Story (film) (Starring Zack Galifianakis))
Is it possible to compare and contrast this film to all the other films that have been made? For example Wizard of Oz....Sling Blade.. and others? --Allin Bagsnott (talk) 21:58, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
 * How similar are their respective plotlines? Even if they're not, you can take the approach that Siskel & Ebert used to talk about. Films tend to fall into genres. So for a given film, one important question is the quality of the film within that genre. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 23:07, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

The Wanted( music group)
Can anyone tell me who the brunette is in the video "she walks like Rihanna" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.133.136.221 (talk) 23:15, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

Regarding Viz_Media
I can't stream the new Sailor Moon viz dub online because I live in Canada. Is there a website where I can and does ViZ Media have a contact email address? Venustar84 (talk) 23:34, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
 * They have a contact feedback form on their website. If you go here, there's a feedback button on the top bar of the site.
 * A lot of companies use systems like that for feedback now. It cuts down on spam and such. 75.69.10.209 (talk) 23:59, 7 December 2014 (UTC)